Learned counsel for the informant has supplied copy of the counter affidavit to counsel for the applicant, which, he will file in the registry. Learned counsel for the applicant does not want to file rejoinder affidavit.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 Om Prakash Pandey @ Sajan Panday in Case Crime No. 130 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Chhawani, District Basti.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the accused applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and role of conspiracy has been alleged against him; no eye witness has been examined on the basis of which, his involvement in the crime can be established. Further submission is that there is no criminal history of the accused applicant and 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 1.9.2020 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that although there is no eye witness in the case but there was dues of Rs. 2,18,700/- on the part of the applicant and he did not return him then the deceased had stated that he will lodge F.I.R. against the applicant for making conspiracy and hiring certain unknown persons to kill.
Replying to learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no recovery from the accused applicant and he has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion, there was familiar terms of the accused applicant with the deceased and there was no reason for entering into such conspiracy and committing murder of the deceased.
It is clear from the above arguments and on the basis of material available on record that case is totally based on circumstantial evidence, there is no direct evidence against the accused applicant.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the fact of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Om Prakash Pandey @ Sajan Panday 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 :- 19.1.2021 Dhirendra/