Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Dur Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been given by the accused applicant Manveer Singh in Case Crime No. 91 of 2020, under Sections 120B, 147, 352, 302, 148, 149, 201 I.P.C., P.S.- Pisava, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused applicant has been named in the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. was lodged by wife of the deceased in which it was alleged that accused applicant having inimical relationship conspired and hired two persons to kill the deceased and consequently, the deceased was killed by those two hired persons. Learned senior counsel submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged against four named accused persons and two unnamed accused persons. Out of six accused, two named accused namely Gajendra and Aakash were exonerated by the police during investigation. He further submitted that ten more accused persons were also introduced during investigation, against them also charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that except that, informant alleged about inimical relationship with the accused applicant that the deceased is said to have heard that accused applicant is making conspiracy to kill the deceased. Accused Raju was arrested and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he was produced before the Magistrate where he denied his earlier statement in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the alleged confessional statement of co-accused Raju has lost his relevance against the accused applicant. In respect of criminal history of five cases, learned counsel has submitted that in two cases final report has been submitted by the police; in two cases he has been granted bail and in one case he has been acquitted. It has been further submitted that there is no eye witness account, which can show involvement of the accused applicant in the commission of offence. The allegation made by the informant in the F.I.R., as per the statement of learned counsel, is only to make a case of suspect and it cannot be given affect as if it was dying declaration made to the wife. Further submission is that charge-sheet has already been filed after police investigation and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, therefore, there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. Applicant is languishing in jail since 31.7.2020 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and cooperate in trial.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and have submitted that earlier an F.I.R. was also lodged for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which shows inimical relationship and motive behind commission of this offence. It has also been argued that confessional statement of co-accused, which, he denied later on in his statement before the Magistrate, even then also, it can be read for collateral purpose as an additional circumstance to support the prosecution case. In the case u/s 307 IPC (S.T. no. 684/2018) the deceased was a witness and in that case an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was given against the accused applicant, which was not entertained and which is also not on record. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased gave statement against the accused applicant and the police has wrongly filed final report against the accused applicant. However, he has not disputed the aforesaid facts and has submitted that the police has filed charge-sheet after concluding the investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that where no such application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was given or the same is not on record it cannot be inferred that informant side was inclined to give such application, therefore, fact remains that final report was filed against that accused applicant in that case.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides except that F.I.R. allegation where wife stated that accused applicant is making conspiracy to kill, there appears to be no substantive evidence against the accused applicant. Moreover, this fact cannot be disputed that total case is based on circumstantial evidence and circumstances which could lead to a definite conclusion recording guilt of the accused applicant is yet to be established during trial, considering the fact that only conspiracy has been alleged against the accused applicant and the accused applicant is already in jail from the last about five months, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Manveer Singh (Chairman) be released on bail in aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/ court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Dhirendra/