Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6926 of 2018 Appellant :- Narayan @ Thakur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Chandra Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jagdamba Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present for respondent no. 2 in spite of the sufficient service of notice on him.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur in bail application no. 115 of 2018 (Shailesh Rajbhar alias Kailash and Narayan alias Thakur vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 602 of 2017 under Sections 34, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Jamaniya, District Ghazipur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that the complainant Bharat Bhusan lodged the FIR on 01.07.2017 at 03:30 am at the police Station Jamaniya with these facts that he is chamar by caste. On 30.06.2017 when his father Ram Prasad was sleeping in hut the at about 01:00 am in the night Lal Ji Rai, Madan Rai, Uday Narayan and Shyam Sundar were murdered his father Ram Prasad by firing the shot on him. Before two days of this occurrence they have threatened the father of the complainant that they will kill him they also hurled the abuses by calling name of the caste of the complainant. In this matter after one year of the lodging of the FIR during investigation on the statement of the witness Ratnesh Kumar Rai name of the appellant came to the light.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application strongly whereas learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case. Occurrence took place in the intervening night of 30.06.2017 and 01.07.2017 at 01:00 am and the FIR was lodged promptly at 03:30 am on 01.07.2017. First informant Bharat Bhusan himself is the eye witness of the occurrence and accused are knowing to him because they are the residence of the same village. First informant has named the five persons in his FIR who committed the offence. Narayan @ Thakur is not named in the FIR. Near about after eight month of the occurrence statement of the complainant under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded even then he did not named the appellant. Appellant is made accused only on the basis of the statement of Ratnesh Kumar Rai given under section 161 Cr.P.C. which is recorded after the one year of the occurrence that on the date of occurrence he was going to filed to defecate. He heard the noise of gun shot fire. At that time he saw two persons running, one person was some step ahead and other was running behind ten steps back and the person running ahead told to Sailesh to run away fast. He (witness) recognize the voice of that person that it was the voice of Narayan. This Ratnesh Kumar is not named as the witness of occurrence in FIR.
Considering these fact, in my opinion it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the appeal is deserves to the allowed.
Appeal is allowed and order dated 03.08.2018 is quashed.
Let appellant Narayan @ Thakur involved in aforesaid case be released on bail Case Crime No. 602 of 2017 under Sections 34, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Jamaniya, District Ghazipur, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant 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 appellant 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.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Swati