Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17468 of 2021 Applicant :- Manjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Subhendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Manjeet Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0014 of 2021, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC, registered at Police Station Mandawar, District Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the present incident is night incident which has been committed at about 22:30 hours for which FIR was registered at 23:51 hours. In the FIR although the applicant and four other co-accused persons have been named and have been assigned the role of firing with their respective weapon as a result of which Ajeej and Shan Mohammad are alleged to have died in which the informant claims himself to be an eye- witness of the incident. The other eye-witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that the applicant, co-accused Boota Singh, Tarna Singh and Prakash exhorted to co-accused Dilbag Singh on which he fired on Ajeej and Sham Mohammad who are two deceased as a result of which they died. It is argued that after arrest of the accused persons, they were taken for recovery, but on the pointing out of Dilbag Singh, a country-made pistol has been recovered, as such the role of the applicant is distinguishable with other co-accused Dilbag Singh. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.1.2021.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and has been assigned the role of firing along with four other co-accused persons upon the deceased persons but could not dispute the fact that the first informant claims himself to be an eye-witness of the incident but other witnesses have assigned the specific role of firing upon the co-accused Dilbag Singh.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other eye-witnesses, main role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Dilbag Singh. The applicant along with three other co-accused persons have been assigned the role of exhortation only. There is a recovery of country-made pistol on the pointing out of co-accused Dilbag Singh.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Dilbag Singh.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Manjeet Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Gaurav