Heard Sri Mohd. Abrar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned counsel 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 Ranjeet Dhobi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 466 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Pachim Sarira, District Kaushambi.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that identically placed co-accused Kallu @ Ateeq has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 529 of 2021 (Kallu @ Ateeq Vs. State of U.P.and another), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. He claims parity to the said order. It is further argued that two other co-accused Mohd. Firoz Khan @ Mantri @ Mitthu and Ujair Ahmad have been granted bail vide orders dated 15.07.2021 and 2765 of 2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 526 of 2021 (Mohd. Firoz Khan @ Mantri @ Mitthu Vs. State of U.P. and another) and 2765 of 2021 (Ujair Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another). The bail orders have been produced before the Court which are also taken on record. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report and his name has surfaced for the first time after ten days of the incident in the confessional statement of co-accused Yasir which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either on the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant and there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the applicant in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is not having criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.12.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Kallu @ Ateeq has been granted bail.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that co-accused Kallu @ Ateeq has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The present case is a case of parity with co-accused Kallu @ Ateeq.
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 Ranjeet Dhobi, 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.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)