Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the F.I.R., the police arrested the applicant and co-accused on 01.02.2014 in police encounter and it is said that the looted articles were recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a perusal of recovery memo indicates that the complainant and other witnesses were present at the time when the arrest and recovery was made. The presence of the complainant appears to be highly improbable and even if it is presumed that they were present, the procedure adopted by the police for identification of applicant and the looted articles is not according to the prescribed procedure. It has further been submitted that it has not been made clear by any of the witnesses that as to who fired at the deceased. With regard to the criminal history it has been argued that the applicant is on bail in all cases. The co-accused Vinay having identical role has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2015, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. There applicant is in jail since 01.02.2014.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused having identical role has already been released on bail.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Rahul Dixit involved in Case No.40 of 2014, Under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur, 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:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate with the trial.
3. The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 18.1.2016 Jitendra