Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45933 of 2017 Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Nazrul Islam Jafri,Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Reema Gupta (B.H.) learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 28.8.2016 after twelve days of the incident against two accused persons, namely, Surendra and Chandrakesh alleging that on 6.8.2016 Shyam Charan, brother of the deceased, was abducted and was missing with the help of Surendra and Chandrakesh. Subsequently, in the confessional statement before the Police he has stated that there was illicit relation between Shyam Charan (deceased) and wife of Arvesh hence with the help of Gajendra, Sonu and Arvesh they killed the deceased (Shyam Charan) and recovery of tractor of the deceased was shown on the pointing out of the applicant but on recovery memo there was no signature of the applicant. Signature of Sonu, brother of the complainant, was found. One skeleton of the body was recovered on 11.9.2016. Only some portion of head bone was found.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Gajendra,Arvesh and Sonu have been enlarged on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 4.1.2017, 29.3.2017 and 17.1.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 39 of 2017, 10641 of 2017 and 724 of 2017 and the case of the applicant is not heinous than the case of co-accused- ajendra,Arvesh and Sonu, who have been enlarged on bail hence the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity; applicant is languishing in jail since 11.9.2016 (more than two years and four months) having no criminal history; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he is not named in the F.I.R.; there is no eye witness account; there is no independent witness and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no possibility to get this decided in near future.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and also admitted that the case of the present applicant is not heinous than the case of co-accused ajendra,Arvesh and Sonu, who have been enlarged on bail.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Mukesh involved in Case Crime No. 492 of 2016, under Section 302, 201, 394, 120-B, 411 IPC, Police Station-Gunnaur, District-Sambhal be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 OP