Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34186 of 2019 Applicant :- Prashant Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Mr.Manish Tiwary,Senior Adv.,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
S/Sri Amit Daga, Mayank and Deepak Dubey, Advocates filed their Vakalatnamas on behalf of the complainant are taken on record.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Tripathi (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State, S/Sri Amit Daga, Mayank and Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against six accused persons, namely, Adarsh Tripathi, Himanshu Singh, Hariom Tripathi, Navneet Yadav @ Abhishek Yadav, Prashant Upadhya and Saurabh Vishwakarma alleging that in the intervening night of 14/15.4.2019 they killed Rohit Shukla Betu, son of the complainant, by shot fire. He died receiving four gun shot injuries. Main role of shot fire on the deceased was assigned to Adarsh Tripathi, Himanshu Singh and Hariom Tripathi and the role of catching hold to the deceased was assigned to Navneet Yadav @ Abhishek Yadav, Prashant Upadhya and Saurabh Vishwakarma. Country made pistols used in the crime were recovered at the pointing out of Adarsh Tripathi, Himanshu Singh and Hariom Tripathi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 18.4.2019 (more than four months) having no previous criminal history and two cases were roped falsely later on. The applicant is a student of B.Sc. Actually the applicant was arrested by the Police from his house and several applications were sent to the higher authorities with C.C.T.V. Footage and later on the Police has shown the arrest of the applicant at Allahabad and one country made pistol was also shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant. Papers related to these facts are annexed in the bail application at page 45 onwards. Even though the role of the applicant is extended upto catching hold only and main role of shot fire has been assigned to Adarsh Tripathi, Himanshu Singh and Hariom Tripathi. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused-Adarsh Tripathi, Himanshu Singh and Hariom Tripathi. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and also admitted that the role of the applicant is of catching hold only.
S/Sri Amit Daga and Mayank, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in this case suo motu recognizance was taken by the Division Bench of this Court.
Sri Deepak Dubey, Advocate is also appearing for the complainant and opposed the prayer for bail and he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra, reported in (2019) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 325 and stated that deceased was the witness in another case and he was murdered in this case and trial will affect.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Prashant Upadhyay involved in Case Crime No. 280 of 2019, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Prayagraj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 OP