Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant which is taken on record.
Sri Manu Sharma holding brief of Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appears on behalf of the applicant and states that he has filed vakalatnama of Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey on 17.12.2019 in Court reference of which is in the order of said date but still his name is not printed in the cause list.
Heard Sri Manu Sharma holding brief of Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lalit Kumar holding brief of Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Pappu @ Rahmat Ali @ Sultan Kuraishi seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 332 of 2017, under Sections 394, 302, 412 IPC, registered at P.S. Nautanwa, District Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The applicant is not named in the First Information Report which has been lodged against unknown persons for committing the murder of his father and mother regarding which, he received an information through shopkeeper of the area, to which, he reached his house and found their neck to be cut and the door and the lock of a box broken, from which, money and jewellery was stolen. It is argued that subsequently on 03.10.2017 i.e. after about 16 days, police informer gave information to the Investigating Officer that the maternal grandson of the deceased Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu and his friends have committed the murder of the deceased persons. On the information of the police informer, five persons were arrested on 09.10.2017 and certain recoveries were made and their confession was recorded by the police, in which, the participation of the applicant surfaced. Further, it was argued in the confession of co-accused persons it was stated that co-accused Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu caught hold of leg of one of the deceased Jai Ram Yadav, the applicant pressed his neck while co-accused Sant Kumar Yadav cut the neck of both the deceased persons. It is argued that there is a recovery shown by the police of a pial, jhumki, locket, bali and Rs. 29,500/- from the pointing out of the applicant which is a false recovery as there is no independent witness of the same. It is argued that the circumstances do not in any manner complete the chain and the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that co-accused Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 17898 of 2019, copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal hsitory as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 13.11.2018.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Santosh Kumar Yadav who is the assailant wherein the applicant has been assigned the role of pressing the neck of one of the deceased Jai Ram Yadav. In so far as the argument regarding the applicant having no criminal history is concerned, the same is not disputed by both the learned counsels. It is argued that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records, particularly, the fact that the nature of offence, the evidence on record, the present case is a case of circumstantial in nature and the co-accused Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu has been granted bail wherein there is a distinction but without a difference.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for bail, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Pappu @ Rahmat Ali @ Sultan Kuraishi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
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.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 / M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)