Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the applicant in memo of bail application.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of the alleged incident the applicant was posted as constable at the police station Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow. One Chhote Lal had lodged an F.I.R. as Case Crime No.86 of 2000, under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C., Police Station BKT Lucknow against the deceased Virendra Singh. Co-accued Arshad Ali had investigated the Case Crime No.86 of 2000. After investigation the deceased was found guilty, he arrested and booked behind lockup at the police station. The intervening night on 23/24.08.2000, the festival of Janmashtami was being celebrated at police station. Constable Gulab Chand and Manohar Lal were on night guarding (Pehra Duty) while the applicant along with Awadh Nath Chauhan was on night field duty at village Dewri Rusara, Sukhandi and Loharan Purva. On 24.08.2000 in the morning, the applicant came to know that the deceased Virendra Singh had committed suicide by hanging himself from his own shirt. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant has not taken any money from the complainant. False story has been concocted by the complainant. It has further been submitted that no summon regarding the case was served upon the applicant, as such he has no knowledge of the case. The co-accused Awadh Nath Chauhan having identical role has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2016, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It has further been submitted that other co-accused Chandra Kiran Singh Rathore, Priya Kumar Tripathi, Abdul Rehman, Udai Narain Shukla, Narendra Singh, Anil Mishra and Ram Prasad Premi have already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.07.2009, 04.02.2009, 15.01.2009 and 20.01.2009 respectively. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 09.12.2015.
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 Ram Prabhu Shukla involved in Crime No.87 of 2000, Under Sections 120-B, 302, 323, 342, 218, 201 I.P.C. & 7/13 (2) of P.C. Act, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, 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 will 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 :- 16.3.2016 Jitendra