Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26942 of 2021 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rakesh Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 288 of 2020, under Sections 147, 302, 120B I.P.C. registered at P.S. Nakur, District Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per the First Information Report the deceased, who is cousin of the first informant, went missing on 28.6.2020 at about 09.00 P.M. and his dead body was then found on 29.6.2020 at about 09.00 A.M. in the field of one Pappu entangled in electric wire fence wherein his dead body was lying. It is argued that the F.I.R. has been registered on 5.7.2020 at about 17.20 hours which is after a delay of about seven days without any plausible explanation implicating as many as five accused persons including the applicant showing the incident as an honour killing by alleging that the deceased was in a relationship with the daughter of the applicant. It is further argued that even the applicant had got registered an F.I.R. earlier when his daughter and the deceased had eloped in which the deceased was arrested and was subsequently granted bail.
It is argued that the present case is a case of accidental death due to electric shock by getting entangled in electric wire fence. It is argued that there is no internal injury found on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the inquest report of the deceased, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit, and has argued that Jeet Singh the father of the deceased, was a witness to the same and even there he did not raise any suspicion also regarding unnatural death of his son. It is argued that all the five witnesses to the inquest have stated that the deceased died by getting electrocuted in the wire. It is further argued that there are statements of independent witnesses which is also suggestive of the fact that the present case is a case of accidental death. It is argued that the co-accused Arvind and Monu@Manoj have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 19.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10862 of 2021(Arvind Vs. State of U.P.) and vide order dated 30.6.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18971 of 2021 (Monu@Manoj Vs. State of U.P.), copies of which have been placed before the Court today in Court which are taken on record. It is argued that co-accused Rajesh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 19923 of 2021, copy of which has been placed before the Court, which is taken on record. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 9.2.2021.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there was a motive for him to commit the aforesaid offence as his daughter was entangled with the deceased and even previously he had lodged an F.I.R. in which the deceased was arrested. It is argued that as such the prayer for bail be rejected. Although learned State counsel did not dispute the fact that co-accused Arvind and Monu@Manoj have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court and co-accused Rajesh has been granted bail by this Court.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that there is no eye witness to the incident, dead body of the deceased was found entangled in an electric wire fence where he was electrocuted, the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of seven days and the father of the deceased was a witness to the inquest who did not raise any suspicion or foul play at that point of time.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Rakesh Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2021 nd