Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30000 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Ravindra with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 335 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sardhana, District-Meerut, during the pendency of the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report has been lodged by Sagir Ahmad on 31st May, 2019 against as many as five named accused persons alleging therein that due to election rivalry, the co-accused Idrish was inimical to the informant. On 3rd May, 2019 at 06:00 a.m. (morning), the informant, his brother Jameer Ahmad and his nephew Shahrukh were sitting in his house, then all the named accused persons having knives and illegal weapons entered into his house and started using filthy language against them when the informant objected not to do the same, with intention to kill, they fired due to which his brother and nephew sustained fire arm injuries and the informant has also sustained injuries. On hearing the noise, villagers came and on seeing them, all the accused persons threatening to kill ran away. In the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., the injured have reiterated the same version as unfolded in the first information report. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report nor his name has surfaced in the statements of the injured. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant and other five co-accused persons. As per the prosecution version, general role of causing fire arm injuries to all the three injured has been assigned to all the accused persons. Specific role as to who is the author of the said injuries has not been assigned to any of the accused persons. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that confessional statements were admittedly recorded after the arrest of the applicant and other five co-accused persons and when these accused were in police custody. Therefore, such statements were inadmissible having regard to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates so, in certain and unequivocal terms, as is clear from the language thereof. It reads as follows:
“25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. - No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
Likewise, Section 26 makes any such statement inadmissible if given when in police custody. It reads:
“26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. – No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person"
In view of the aforesaid, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 8th May, 2019.
Per contra 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 facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record 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 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, 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 :- 26.7.2019 Sushil/-