Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47020 of 2018 Applicant :- Priyavrat @ Munmun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in F.I.R. dated 29.8.2013 lodged at 1:30 a.m. regarding incident of 1:00 a.m.; that in F.I.R. as many as 07 named and 2-3 unnamed persons have been assigned with general and common role of pelting stones, stabbing as well as causing injuries with sword, kicks, fists etc., resulting in multiple injuries to Ankur Swami, Piyush and Raja, sons of first informant Nimesh Swami and also too Nimesh Swami, resulting in death of Ankur Swami; that injury reports of injured persons do not show any grievous injury sustained by any of them; that the post mortem report of Ankur Swami deceased states two incised wounds over left and right parietal area of skull with one abrasion and one stab wound on left side of chest; that in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on same day, first informant has specified weapon and role to each of the assailant, assigning sword to applicant and role of causing incised wounds by sword to deceased; that upon investigation charge sheet was filed against accused persons and separate charge sheet was filed against applicant and co-accused Shashank Saxena in 2015 mentioning them absconders; that upon trial in S.T. No.13 of 2014, co-accused persons were convicted and in appeal they have been granted bail; that evidence of prosecution witnesses examined in S.T. No.13 of 2014 (separating trial of co-accused from applicant and Shashank Saxena) is contradictory and unreliable particularly when first informant has turned hostile and another eye witness Raja is reported to have died before his examination; that despite there being no evidence, learned trial court convicted all the co-accused persons for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced them with life imprisonment; that co-accused Shashank Saxena has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6177 of 2018, copy filed at Annexure No. 18; that the case of applicant is identical to Shashank Saxena and he is also entitled for bail; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 24.9.2018.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that applicant is named in promptly lodged F.I.R., lodged within half an hour of the incident; that applicant is absconder and for the incident dated 29.8.2013, he kept on absconding for a long period of more than 05 years, and despite proceedings of non bailable warrant and under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. issued against him, he surrendered only on 24.9.2018; that in above circumstances, trial of other co-accused persons was separated in which upon evidence all of them were convicted; that case of co-accused Shashank Saxena, who was assigned with the role of causing knife injury to deceased is distinguishable from applicant, who is assigned with the role of causing sword injury on head of deceased; that P.W.2 Dr. Ashwani Kumar in his statement on oath in S.T. No.13 of 2014 at Annexure No.9 at page 64 has stated that injury nos.1 and 2 may be caused by sword; that applicant may not have better case than co-accused persons, who have been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC, while the main role of causing fatal injury has been assigned to him; that prosecution evidence has been rightly relied in S.T. No.13 of 2014 and may neither be discarded nor may be disbelieved for granting bail to applicant having 05 years absconding record; that trial against applicant is yet to commence and evidence of witnesses is to be assessed by the trial court at the time of final disposal of trial; that applicant if released on bail will misuse the liberty of bail and will obstruct fair trial.
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 do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of applicant Priyavrat @ Munmun in case crime no.175 of 2013, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 336 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Tamang