Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55481 of 2019 Applicant :- Mukesh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M.C. Singh,Dushyant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant/complainant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Palimukipur, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution version, father of the deceased Himanshu has lodged this F.I.R. against accused applicant and co-accused Yogesh, who has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and some other person stating therein that the deceased Himanshu and Rupali Verma, were in love with each other and were staying in Jirauli Dor about six months prior to this occurrence. The accused-applicant- Mukesh Verma, co-accused Yogesh, mother of the deceased-Rupali Verma and brother of the deceased were opposing marriage of both the deceased with each other. The informant had gone with the proposal for marriage of his son to the accused-applicant about six months ago but the accused side did not agree and had threatened that both the deceased would be killed. In view of that, under well though out conspiracy on 12.10.2018, the deceased Himanshu was got called by deceased Rupali Verma on mobile phone and thereafter the accused-applicant along with co-accused Yogesh and some other unknown person have done to death both the deceased and have shown as if their death occurred in an accident. The informant received information in the night at about 9:00 pm the same day and thereafter he along with other family members reached there and found the dead body of his son and at that time the other deceased Rupali Verma was alive. She told that son of the informant and herself who were on a motor-cycle were hit from behind by the accused-applicant as well as co-accused Yogesh by which they had fallen down and thereafter the accused had run their car over them 2-3 times by which, she had received injuries and other deceased had died.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant himself had taken both the deceased to the P.S. which is entered in G.D., which is annexed at page 16 of the paper book. He has also drawn attention to inquest report of both of the deceased in which cause of death is reported to be road accident and in inquest report of both the deceased, the complainant side was present. It is further argued that accused- applicant had lodged F.I.R. also in this regard at P.S. concerned being crime no. 206 of 2018, under Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 IPC, which is annexed at page 44 and 45 of the paper book. It is further argued that deceased-Rupali Verma was taken to the hospital by her father on 13.10.2019 and deceased-Himanshu was also taken to hospital by his brother on 12.10.2019. It is further argued that police of P.S., Aligarh has given a report dated 5.11.2018 in this case that this occurrence took place in a road accident, which is annexed at page 57 and 59 of the paper book. It is further argued that two eye-witnesses, who are close to informant, their statements have been recorded by the investigating officer two months after the occurrence in which they have given false statement against the accused-applicant and have falsely stated themselves to be eye-witnesses. No such occurrence has taken place as is mentioned in the F.I.R. There is no explanation given from the side of informant/complainant of having caused delay of nine days in lodging the F.I.R.. It is an afterthought just to implicate the accused-applicant falsely despite the fact that applicant knew that this was a case of the accident. It is further argued that co-accused whose case is at par with the case of the accused-applicant, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, order of which is annexed at page 84 of the paper book. Accused-applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is in jail since 22.10.2018.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer of bail stating that this is a case of honour killing as the accused-applicant did not want his daughter to marry the son of the informant and because of that, both of them have been done to death and with respect to that a threat was also given earlier, hence bail should be rejected. In post-mortem report, thirteen injuries have been shown to have been suffered by deceased-Rupali Verma and twenty five injuries have been shown to have been suffered by deceased- Himanshu.
In view of above arguments, looking to the fact that informant was all along present and did not lodge F.I.R. promptly in this case earlier, therefore it cannot be denied that it may be an afterthought, taking into consideration that co-accused- Yogesh whose case is at par with the case of the applicant, had already been granted bail and also taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Mukesh Verma involved in aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 A.P. Pandey