Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13326 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Kartikeya,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Shresth Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shri Prakash Dwivedi
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla assisted by Sri Kumar Kartikeya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Vinod Kant, learned A.A.G assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.0177 of 2020, under Section 147, 307, 323, 326, 427 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Chunar, District-Mirzapur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
I have perused the order sheet dated 08.11.2021 whereby My Esteemed Brother Hon'ble Rajbeer Singh, J. has released the case. On the earlier occasion, vide order dated 28.01.2021, I have rejected Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34234 of 2020 on the ground that since the texture of the case is converted from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC, therefore, the applicant may pursue his case under section 302 IPC and thereafter, after granting liberty to the applicant, first bail application was dismissed.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR was got registered on 29.06.2020 by one Chotey Lal against Navin Kumar Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh(applicant), Jai Kishan and some unknown persons under sections 147, 307, 323, 326, 427 IPC with the allegation that for the incident on 11:30 in the day, whereby named accused persons raided on the spot and have assaulted by lathi and danda. Thereafter, they have poured some acidic and inflammatory substance over the informant's wife Mina Devi and when his son Ankit Kumar went to save his mother, both of them succumbed to burn injuries and died.
Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of the Court to the dying declaration recorded by the injured persons Mina Singh and Ankit who took their last breath on 02.07.2020 and 07.07.2020 respectively.
The Court has got an occasion to peruse the dying declaration of both the injured persons. Curiously enough, in the statement of both the injured persons, none of these persons have taken specific name or attributed specific role to the applicant in the commission of the offence. In fact, in the dying declaration, they have attributed the role to Navin, Jai Kishan, Baadhu and 50 other persons for committing the offence.
It seems that during the investigation, police has recorded the statement of one Rinkal Patel who allegedly have taken the video of the incident which forms a part of the case diary. After taking into account that video, Investigating Officer of the case opined that on the fateful day, the deceased Mina Devi, on her own poured kerosene oil in order to extend threats to the assailants and eventually, she has set her ablaze. Not only this, in this process, her young son Ankit Kumar too sustained burn injuries and both of them died in that unfortunate incident.
On the same pattern, Investigating Officer of the case too corroborated the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of one Rinkal Patel that it is the deceased who is the author of this incident who, on the fateful day, initially extended threats that if anybody is going to occupy the land, she would commit suicide and eventually, she has committed suicide.
On 31.07.2020, the informant started making wild allegations against the Investigating Officer of the case that he is playing a partition role. Thereafter, there was a pressure of NHRC and the Higher Officials. Succumbing those pressures, police without any evidence of murder, concluded the investigation on 25.09.2020 and have submitted the charge sheet under section 302 IPC and other allied sections.
The Court has put a candid question to Sri Vinod Kant, learned A.A.G. and learned counsel for the complainant about the evidence against the applicant regarding murder. In all the fairness, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.A.G. have admitted that there is no evidence of any murder against the applicant nor there is any indication that she has taken the name of the applicant in her dying declaration.
Assessing the totality of circumstances, when there is no evidence of any murder against the applicant nor the deceased has taken the name of the applicant in her dying declaration, since there is no direct involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant, Manoj Kumar Singh, who is involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) 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.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) 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 IPC.
(iv) 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. 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.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Sumit S