Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38032 of 2018 Applicant :- Pargat Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shujauddin,Syed Faiz Hasnain
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated on the basis of subsequent improvements made upon deliberations; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged at 11:35 p.m. on 5.6.2018 by Nisar Khan, his son Istekhar Khan left to Bilaspur by his motorcycle at 1:30 p.m. on 5.6.2018 and when he did not return after considerable time, during search village Pradhan Hafeez Khan informed him about a dead body found in the jungle of Mukarampur upon which he reached there with family members and found the dead body to be of his son Istekhar Khan with multiple incised wounds; that it was also stated that he has no enmity with anybody and death of his son has been caused by some unknown person;" that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the first informant made several improvements by giving details of the mobile phone of deceased and stating that on way to Bilaspur he had taken petrol from Shakeel Khan and sugarcane juice at the shop of Karamat Ali; that subsequently Mohd. Shafiq @ Munne in his statement dated 8.6.2018 contended that he had provided petrol to the motorcycle of deceased and when he was taking cane juice at the shop of Karamat Ali on a call on his mobile he replied that he is reaching Bilaspur within 15-20 minutes and Karamat Ali also stated that on 5.6.2018 at about 1:00 or 1:30 p.m. Istekhar came at his shop, demanded sugarcane juice and when he was taking sugarcane juice a phone came on his mobile on which he replied that he is reaching within 15-20 minutes; that the above witnesses as well as Mohd. Izad Khan, uncle of the deceased and Mohd. Hakeem Khan have also stated that they attended the cremation of Istekhar and at that time there was a talk as to which main persons are not attending his cremation upon which father of deceased as well as Mohd. Izad Khan, uncle of deceased told that Pargat Singh, a fast-friend of deceased has not come to attend the cremation and it was also alleged that he is not in village and is missing since the date of incident; that after recording the statements of above persons on 8.6.2018 wherein it was also stated that applicant and deceased were involved in betting of cricket match further improvement was made by recording additional statement of village Pradhan Hafeez Khan on 9.6.2018, who stated that today Pargat Singh by mobile phone call, called him under the Highway bridge of Mulla Kheda road and made an extra judicial confession before him by stating that there was a dispute of Rs.13,000/- which was not being paid by deceased rather he abused him so he has committed his murder; that after recording the statement of village Pradhan Hafeez Khan on 9.6.2018 the applicant was arrested on the same day and his confessional statement was recorded in police custody and on the basis of alleged disclosure made by him, recovery of weapon of crime, Daanv and Hasiya are alleged to have been made from open public place of which there is no independent witness; that the alleged confessional statement of applicant in police custody is not admissible in evidence and the alleged planted recovery is also not admissible in evidence; that alleged extra judicial confession of applicant before village Pradhan Hafeez Khan has no evidentiary value and applicant never met above village Pradhan and never made any such extra judicial confession before him; that the entire prosecution story has been developed to falsely implicate the applicant; that the alleged confessional statement of applicant is self concocted story of complainant and police which is absolutely false, inadmissible and highly improbable; that the applicant allegedly visited the place of occurrence twice, once for hiding Daanv and again with the Hasiya hiding on back of his Kurta and after the incident hidden the weapons of crime in open place at some distance and left for Sasural of his sister on foot and since her house was locked he passed his time at Mulla Kheda Chauraha and in the evening left to his Sasural Chota Bisena, burnt his blood stained clothes and flowed the ashes in water without disclosing anything in his Sasural; that State was given two weeks time for filing counter affidavit specially in respect of the call details report about alleged calls between the deceased and the applicant on the alleged date of incident, but no such counter affidavit was filed either by the State or by the counsel for first informant who is appearing from the very beginning; that the applicant had no motive to cause death of deceased; that it is absolutely wrong to say that the applicant is involved in betting of cricket and a sum of Rs.13,000/- or so of applicant was due on the deceased; that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant except his confessional statement and planted recovery; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 9.6.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant had reason to commit the murder of Istekhar and there is plenty evidence against him.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Pargat Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No.262 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur, on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 :- 29.11.2018 Kpy