Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15779 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Badan Maurya, Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Badan Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 809/2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 307, 302 IPC, police station Chhibramau, District Kannauj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned senior counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. It was submitted that in F.I.R. though it was alleged that applicant was having a country made pistol, but there is no such allegation that applicant has fired any shot or caused any firearm injury to the deceased or any of the injured. Learned senior counsel has referred the statements of eye witnesses including that of injured witnesses, wherein the role of firing has been attributed to co-accused Munna Lal and that there is no such allegation that applicant has caused any firearm injury. Learned senior counsel has pointed out that eye witnesses have not even assigned any firearm to applicant in their statements, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It has further been argued that the applicant is in judicial custody since 24.12.2020, having no criminal history and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the F.I.R.
Perusal of record shows that though in F.I.R. it was mentioned that applicant was having a country made pistol in his hand and co-accused Munna Lal was having a licenced gun but the role of firing was attributed to co-accused Munna Lal and there were no such allegation that applicant has fired any shot. In his statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., first informant has not assigned any weapon to applicant and stated that co- accused Munna Lal has fired a shot from his licenced gun and resultantly deceased and injured persons sustained injuries. Injured Usha Devi, Udaiveer and Avadhesh have also made similar statements and stated that co-accused Munna Lal has fired from his licenced gun, which caused injuries to deceased and injured persons and they have not assigned any weapon to applicant. Similar statement has been made by another eye witness, namely, Mahaveer.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Rajeev Kumar involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Anand