Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27584 of 2017 Applicant :- Prabhash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Randhir Singh,Kunwar Rajan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Kushwaha,Ray Sahab Yadav And Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27550 of 2017 Applicant :- Pushpendra @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rai Sahab Yadav And Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29714 of 2017 Applicant :- Vipul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Khokher Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Kushwaha,Ray Sahab Yadav
Hon'ble Mukhtar Ahmad,J.
Applicants– Prabhash, Pushpendra @ Kallu and Vipul seek bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2017 under Sections 302,201 and 120-B, IPC, Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat ( S.T. No. 181 of 2017, ( State Vs. Vipul).
Heard Sri S.S.Shailendra, holding brief of Sri Randhir Singh,- Prabhash, Sri V.S. Khokhar learned counsel for the applicant-Vipul, Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant-Pushpendra @ Kallu, Sri Rai Saheb Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of first informant and Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
These are 3 bail applications moved on behalf of aforesaid accused- applicants in the same incident, so for convenience, they are being decided together It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report was lodged on 18.2.2017 against unknown persons by Tarun Saini alleging therein that on 17.2.2017, his brother-Aadesh Kumar had gone to brick kiln field by Mahendra Geep-KUV UP 19C-5439, but he did not return . Thereafter, telephonic calls were made but the same were not attended. On 18.2.2017, it was informed by the police on phone that a dead body was found in the jungle of village Basauli and soon thereafter, the informant rushed to the spot and identified the dead body of his brother- Aadesh Kumar. It was said that some unknown miscreants had committed his murder. During investigation, names of 6 accused persons namely, Prabhash, Vipul, Pushpendra @ Kallu, Rupesh, Avinash @ Medha and Sunil came into light.
It is submitted that the applicants-accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated. It is vehemently argued on behalf of accused- Prabhash that at the time of incident, he was in jail and his involvement has been shown on the basis of surveillance report, but it is not specified as to how the mobile was used , since he was languishing in jail and with whom conversation was made and whether it was in respect of the present incident.
On behalf of applicant-accused( Vipul) it is argued that he was partner, as per the prosecution version of the brick kiln field, so he was not going to be benefited in any manner by causing murder of the deceased. It is also argued on behalf of accused-Vipul and Pushpendra @ Kallu that there was no motive for committing the murder and recovery shown by the police at the instance of applicants-Vipul and Pushpendra @ Kallu is fake. Further there is no ballistic report so that it may be ascertained as to whether weapon recovered from the accused persons was used in the incident in hand. On behalf of accused-applicant (Pushpendra @ Kallu), it is additionally argued that in his alleged confessional statement it is mentioned that fire opened by him hits the window of the vehicle. In respect to criminal history, it is submitted that one case against applicant-Vipul is there in which, he has been provided bail and the bail order has been filed as Annexure-6. It is further submitted that other applicants have no criminal history. On these grounds, bail is prayed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the first informant and learned AGA have opposed the bail by saying that applicant- Prabhash is habitual offender and he manages the crimes from inside the jail and surveillance report as stated by the Investigating Officer, is ample proof of his involvement in the present crime. In respect of Vipul and Pushpendra @ Kallu, it is submitted that they not only confessed their guilt in extra judicial confession, but on their instance, country made pistol used in the crime were recovered and at that time, both of them had confessed that recovered weapon were used in the crime in question. It is also contended that medical examination report also support the prosecution version.
The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie, satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that applicant-Prabhash is entitled for bail. However Bail Applications of applicant-Pushpendra @ Kallu and applicant-Vipul are rejected.
Let the applicant- Prabhash involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the investigation or trial and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
2. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it may be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
It is further provided that learned Trial Court shall conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unwarranted adjournments to any of the parties, unless required for compelling circumstances Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Shahid