Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39215 of 2021 Applicant :- Phool Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Maohammd Nadeem, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Babita Kumari, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure which has been filed by the applicant Phool Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 428 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Soroun, District Kasganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased was married to Surendra Singh the son of the applicant about 10 years back. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death has been opined as shock and hemorrhage due to antimortem injury wherein the deceased was found to receive one incised wound on her parietal region which had underlying bones fractured. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against as many as five accused persons including the applicant. It is further argued that co-accused Surendra Singh who is the husband of the deceased is in jail. Further, while para 11 has been placed before the Court it is argued that the applicant is living separately from the deceased and her husband. It is argued that after the arrest of Surendra Singh on his pointing out, an iron rod has been recovered by the police which is stated to be the weapon of assault but there is no recovery of incriminating material either from possession or pointing out of the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.09.2020.
The co-accused Geetam Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26685 of 2021 (Geetam Singh Vs. State of U.P.), copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 4.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the devar of the deceased and there are allegations of his committing the murder to the deceased. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant is correct and true in the present case. The recovery of an iron rod on the pointing out of the husband of the deceased has not been disputed.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the applicant is the devar of the deceased. There are general and omnibus allegations against five persons including the applicant of committing the present incident. The deceased has received single incised wound. The recovery of an iron rod is from the husband of the deceased. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co- accused Surendra Singh who is the husband of the deceased.The co-accused Geetam Singh has been granted bail by this Court.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant Phool Singh, 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.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.12.2021 Naresh