Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39304 of 2018 Applicant :- Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi,Vikas Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant-Ravindra in connection with Case Crime No.105 of 2018, under Sections 307, 302, 427, 34, 147, 436 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive.
It has been alleged in the first information report that the applicant-Ravindra along with his father Mahesh and other co- accused came at the shop of the complainant. The accused Ravindra was having a gun in his hand. It has further been mentioned that co-accused Mahesh was having one bottle of petrol. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. that accused Mahesh along with his friends come there, poured the petrol over the complainant's father and brother and fire was lit by the accused. It has been alleged in the first information report that Santosh Kumar, Kanhaiyya, Ratan, Pooran and complainant himself came there and they also got burnt injuries and the material kept in the shop also burnt.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the deceased were having a licence of a fair price shop prior to this incident and their fair price shop licence was cancelled and it was given to the accused side and due to this enmity, they have been falsely implicated. An accidental fire broke out in the shop of the complainant's father. It has further been submitted that the complainant's father and brother were selling petrol, diesel and kerosene oil in the shop and he has further submitted that both the deceased have not given any dying declaration to the doctor or anybody implicating the accused in the incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity.
Learned counsel further submitted that the independent witness Santosh Patel who has also received some burn injury when he was trying to save the deceased from the burn injury has specifically mentioned in his statement recorded, under section 161 Cr.P.C that when he was going to his house then he saw the fire and smoke coming out from the shop of the Girendra Singh alias Girvar, then he came at the shop and saw that Girendra Singh alias Girvar was burning and then this witness again went to his house and came with Dari and he tried to extinguish the fire. The statement of this witness is annexed at page nos.69 and 70 of the paper book. This witness is also stated that when he was saving Girwar, he also received burn injury on his feet and right hand. He has specifically mentioned that he has not seen anybody to lit the fire and he has not seen anybody coming out from the place of incident after the fire.
Learned counsel has further submitted that there is another statement of injured, who is an independent witness named Ratan and the witness Ratan specifically stated in his statement that he had gone at about 8.00 p.m. on 25.03.2018 to the shop of Girwar Singh alias Girendra Singh to purchase a match box; he has stated that when he was standing at the shop of the Girwar Singh then accidentally fire broke out and he has also received fire arm injuries on his mouth, both hands and feet and he has specifically mentioned that at that time, there was no one at the shop of Girwar Singh except Girwar Singh and Sunil. This witness has also said that the Girwar Singh alias Girendra Singh was selling petrol and diesel in his shop. The witness Kanhayya alias Allu has also supported the similar statement of the accused as given by the witness Ratan and he has also said that he had not seen who had ignited the fire. Learned counsel has further submitted that the present accused has been falsely implicated and no role was assigned to the present applicant.
He lastly submitted that the applicant is neither previous convict nor any other case is pending against him in any court of law and there is no criminal history against the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 27.03.2018 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Shri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant and the learned A.G.A. have vehementally opposed the bail plea.
Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3) SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant-Ravindra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
ii) He will not tamper with the witness.
iii) He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 SFH