Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20285 of 2018 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Singh Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
According to the prosecution case, the First Information Report was lodged against unknown person alleging that on 03.01.2015, Ajay Kumar, son of complainant, aged about 9 years, was missing. On 13.03.2015, complainant made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Hathras alleging that Raju, son of Tejpal, Raju, son of Vinay, Gulab Singh, son of Babu Lal and Rannu were indulged in this crime. Subsequently, the name of Bhanu @ Bhuneshwar Gupta was also surfaced. Ajay was not found till date.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Co-accused Raju has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15947 of 2018, sine the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.12.2017 (more than five months) having no criminal history. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. After two months ten days, the name of the applicant was surfaced on the application of the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Hathras after thought and with due legal consultation due to previous enmity. There is no recovery on the pointing out of the applicant. There is no eye witness account or independent witness against the applicant. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R.
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 criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.
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 Raju involved in Case Crime No. 21 of 2015, under Sections 364A, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras 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 :- 29.5.2018 OP