Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28895 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramesh Jogi @ Ramesh Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The present bail application filed on behalf of the applicant- Ramesh Jogi @ Ramesh Chand for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.583 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 341, 336, 307, 427, 436, 109 I.P.C., Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Syana, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the trial.
Heard Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that FIR was lodged against 27 named persons and about 50-60 others alleging therein that an incident of cow slaughter was reported to the police, on which Subodh Kumar Singh, Station House Officer, In-charge of Police Station Syana along with other police personnels had gone to maintain law and order where the crowd had assembled on the spot. The named persons as well as 50-60 unknown men and women who were being sought to be pacified by the police started pelting stones, thereafter, at about 13.35 hours Yogesh Raj and others leading the mob jammed the road in front of police outpost Chingravathi and started acting violently. The Sub Divisional Magistrate and Circle Officer, Syana was also present on the spot and they also tried to pacify the alleged mob which did not cool down and the named persons continued instigating the mob. It has further been alleged that with a common intention the said mob armed with illegal weapons, sharp edged weapons, lathis and dandas attacked the police personnels, snatched the licensed pistols and three mobile phones of Station House Officer, Subodh Kumar Singh after shooting him and also destroyed wireless sets and set on fire certain property belonging to the police outpost as well as a private car of the Sub-Inspector Suresh Kumar and other government vehicles and articles were also destroyed. It has also been alleged that the Station House Officer who received gun shot injuries was later on declared dead when he was brought to CHC Lakhawati, Aurangabad. Many other police personnels were also injured in the alleged incident but all are said to have sustained simple injuries. As many as 126 charge-sheeted witnesses were examined. From a perusal of the charge-sheet it would appear that in the statement of Constable Subham Saini, the names of five accused persons, namely, Chanderpal @ Chander, Rohit Kumar Raghav, Sonu, Kuldeep Kumar and Jitendra @ Lala Gurjar came into light. It has been argued that the statement of Constable Subham Saini was recorded from which it is clear that from the very beginning the information regarding the said incident of people being aggravated due to incident of cow slaughter was received by him and on receiving the information he passed the same to the concerned police officer from where he along with other police personnels, Sub Divisional Magistrate Syana, Tehsildar Syana reached to the place of incident. Second statement of Subham Saini was also recorded which is at variance with his first statement given by him. As per second statement of Subham Saini, it is said that after receiving information regarding assembly of persons objecting the incident of cow slaughter, he went to the spot alongwith other police personnels and tried to pacify the crowd. He has stated that one person wearing the red shirt and covering his head by a cloth was having spade in his hands. The other persons were asking him to cut the trees in order to block the road. They were addressing him as Kalua and on the direction of the persons assembled there the said person started cutting the trees. When the Station House Officer (Kotwal) reached and tried to stop him from cutting the trees on which Kalua tried to hit the Inspector by spade due to which the Inspector received injures on his hand. He hit for a second time on which the concerned Station House Officer (Kotwal) asked the Home-guard Prem Prakash to give his rifle by which he hit Kalua from his back side in order to push him but again the said Kalua attacked on the concerned Station House Officer (Kotwal) due to which he sustained injuries on his head. Yogesh Raj and his associates who were present in the crowd, namely, Jitendra @ Lala Gujar, Sumit, Chotu, Ankur, Anti @ Amit, Ajay Nut, Ramesh Jogi, Hemu @ Hemraj, David, Jony, Nitin, Lokendra, Mohit Prashant Nut, Raja, Omendra, Sachin Kobra, Rahul, Jeetu Fauzi, Rajkumar, Shikar Agrawal, Ashish Chauhan, Chander @ Chandrapal, Rohit, Teeku, Guddu, Harendra, Sonu, Kuleep Kumar and Saurabh Kumar started instigating and with a common intention started pelting stones on the police personnels as well as the concerned Station House Officer (Kotwal) on which the Kotwal took the helmet from his driver Ram Asrey and blood was seen coming out from below the helmet. The Station House Officer (Kotwal) as well as the Home-guard and 2-3 police personnels tried to go behind the south wall of college and the persons from crowd present there continued pelting stones; they were having lathi, danda in their hand using abusive language and making slogans and were in their aggravated form. This incident of chaos has been narrated in detail. The statement of Subham Saini is different from the version as alleged in the FIR. In the summary of investigation it has been stated that the public was pelting stones on police personnels and other officials who were present at the place of incident. During the fight between the public and the police personnels Sumit sustained fire arm injuries on which the public shouted and being annoyed Subodh Kumar Singh, Inspector in Charge, who had already sustained injuries was shot by one Prashant which was seen by the eye witnesses present there. The videography of the whole incident was there but the applicant has not been identified in the video footage. As already stated in the summary of investigation that one of the alleged assailant, namely, Sumit has also died in the said incident and his medical examination was conducted and in his medical examination the fire arm wound of entry was found and cause of death was shown to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of the said injury but the incident regarding death of Sumit has not been mentioned in the FIR. The post mortem of the deceased Subodh Kumar Singh was also conducted and ten ante mortem injury was found on his body, out of which injury no.1 is described as fire arm wound on the forehead. The cause of death was shown to be shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injury. A bullet was also recovered and sealed by the doctor conducting the post mortem examination. Though the applicant is named in the FIR, however, he has not been assigned any specific role of causing injury to the injured or the deceased. After the arrest of the applicant, no incriminating articles/weapons of offence or any articles connecting the applicant to the said crime have been recovered either on his pointing out or from his possession. The applicant has wrongly been targeted as a part of mob and it appears that the police started catching all the persons in an attempt to somehow or the other intimidate independent witnesses from coming forward to disclose the correct version of the incident which highlights the highhandedness of the police to substantiate their own false claims. That the persons tried to lodge the FIR regarding death of Sumit, but the same has amalgamated in the present FIR stating therein that it is the result of the same incident, however, no charge sheet under Sections 395 and 302 I.P.C. has come against the applicant. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant-Ramesh Jogi @ Ramesh Chand is languishing in jail since since 13th December, 2018. As such the applicant has undergone more than six months of incarceration. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Sushil/-