Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Tripathi and Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Prince @ Kalu & Another with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Pahasu, District-Buland Shahr, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report has been lodged on 1st August, 2018 by Manju Devi alleging therein that Raj Pal and his two sons, namely, Mahendra (Pradhan) and Manish used to feel grudge about something from her husband. Repeatedly, they threatened her husband to kill him in future. On 30th July, 2018 at 8:00, the co-accused Manish came to her house and said to her husband that father of co-accused Manish and brother (Pradhan) has called him, but her husband said that he would talk to them in morning. After some time, he again came and said that he has been called urgently for some important work. The co-accused Manish took her husband along with him and at the street near the gate of house of one Shiv Charan, with intention to kill her husband, the co-accused Manish fired twice upon her husband by country-made pistol. On hearing the sound of firing, the first informant along with two other family members came to the place of incident and saw that the husband of first informant was lying on the road in injured condition, when the first informant and other two family members tried to pick up from road, other two co-accused, namely, Raj Pal Chaddha and Mahendra instigated the co-accused to kill him and on the said instigation, the co-accused again fired upon her husband due to which he sustained injury on his mouth and thereafter on shouting when people came, they ran away. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that in the first information report, it has been alleged against the present applicants that they were standing along with co-accused Manish, Raj Pal Chaddha and Mahendra. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that as per the medical examination report, the injuries suffered by the victim are simple in nature as the Doctor who conducted the medical examination of the victim has opined that no active surgical instruction was required as no mediastinal structure injury was found in the body of the victim. It has been next argued that the applicants are innocent and due to village politics, they have been falsely implicated in the present case, as is evident from the version of the first information report. It has further been argued that two prosecution witnesses of facts, namely, P.W.-1 i.e. first informant and P.W.-2 i.e. the injured have been examined as on date. In the statement of the P.W.-2 i.e injured that two persons, namely, Raj Pal and Mahendra have fired upon the injured. There is clear contradictions in the statements of the first informant and injured as well as the first information report. It is lastly argued on behalf of the applicants that the main accused, namely, Manish has already been enlarged on bail by this Bench vide order dated 2nd May, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18715 of 2019. The case of hte present applicants are on better footing to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also pressed the issue of period of detention of the applicants i.e. 15th October, 2019, who have undergone more than one year and two months of incarceration. He, therefore, submits that considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicants behind the bars. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh (Supra) let the applicants involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond separately and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Sushil/-