Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24098 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohit Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Nagendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Mohit Pal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 183 of 2017, under Sections - 452, 302, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Allahabad, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of murder of four persons and gang rape with two girls, punishable with imprisonment upto life which may extent to death penalty;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 24.04.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 17.07.2017;
(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has already been submitted. At present, it appears, the testimony of informant has been completed, however, there is long list of witnesses. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(vi) In such facts, learned counsel for the applicant submits, the F.I.R. was lodged against five named persons, however, during investigation, their names were expunged. As to the allegations made against the present applicant and three others, it has been submitted, their names were introduced by the police for oblique reasons. Neither, they were involved in the commission of the offence, nor there is any credible material to proceed against them. Then, it has been submitted, on the fateful night, the applicant was present at the marriage ceremony of his sister. Last, it has been submitted, the informant, during his examination at trial, has not supported the prosecution story of the applicant having been named during the investigation. Thus, his name was subsequently introduced on the strength of a confessional statement of one of the co-accused and some totally false statement given by Rakhi Saroj which, in any case, does not establish complicity of the present applicant.
4. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. Learned A.G.A. has referred to the C.D.R. details and confessional statements of the co-accused Neeraj, as also, the statement of one Rakhi Saroj who had made certain allegations as to the conduct of the applicant soon after the occurence. Then, the gravity of offence has also been referred to, wherein the present applicant and the co-accused are alleged to have committed the henious offence of gang rape and murder which was motivated by certain money that was allegedly due from one of the deceased girls. It has also been submitted, two surviving members of the family of the deceased, namely, the informant- Ranjeet and his sister Babita are under grave threat to their lives. Thus, release of the present applicant, at this stage, would severely adversely affect the trial as the prosecution witness are already under threat of being eliminated for reason of pursuing the trial proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend, other than weak circumstantial evidence proposed to be introduced by the prosecution, there is no material to directly implicate the applicant or the other co-accused and the applicant's liberty had remained curtailed for almost two and a half year.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, at present, it appears, the testimony of P.W.-1 has concluded. In the respect of the applicant, in the present proceedings, no conclusion can be drawn as to his innocence by relying on the solitary testimony recorded till now. In a grave case as this involving murder of four persons of the same family, the entire evidence would have to be considered after the same is received by the trial court before any conclusion may be drawn as to the complicity of the present applicant.
7. At present, the prosecution appears to rely on its case diary material including C.D.R. details as also certain other statements etc., which are yet to be proved before the trial court. Again, no inference is required to be drawn with respect to the same. While learned counsel for the informant submits, there has been interference of some influential persons, who tried to derail the fair course of justice, again, no inference is being drawn even in that regard at the present stage.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, as even noted above, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
9. However, in view of the gravity of offence alleged and has a vital bearing on the society as also the surviving members of the victims family, it is of utmost importance that the trial proceedings be concluded as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. without allowing for any undue or long adjournment. The trial court may stay reminded of its power to adopt coercive measures against the concerned witness, so as to ensure that not a single date fixed at the trial goes waste. Effective efforts must be ensured in such matters on a day to day basis, so that justice be done and the purpose of the trial remains meaningful and real, rather than becoming an academic exercise of no consequence. Thus, while no time limit may be fixed for conclusion of the trial, keeping in mind the fact that there is a long list of witnesses to be examined, the Court is confident that the trial court would take all steps to comply with this order in letter and spirit.
10. If, for any reason, the trial remains pending for one year from today, then the applicant may file another bail application along with the copy of the entire order sheet of the trial court.
11. Parties are at liberty to place on record the certified copy of this order before the trial court.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Saif