Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Rishipal vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|13 September, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25973 of 2015 Applicant :- Rishipal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet K. Yadav,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 339 of 2014 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Hayat Nagar, District- Sambhal, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant who is absolutely innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police merely on the basis of suspicion. The incident had taken place in the night. As per the prosecution case, while a police party waiting at the place of occurrence to nab some wanted criminals on noticing the applicant who was going somewhere with his friends tried to catch the applicant and his friends on which the applicant fired at the home guard who had caught him and who died on the spot as a result of firearm wounds so received by him. He next submitted that applicant was not known to the police nor he has any criminal antecedents to his credit and hence, it was not possible for the members of the police party including the informant to have recognized him, and nominate him as an accused in the F.I.R.. He next submitted that post mortem report of the deceased also does not support the prosecution story as no gunshot injury has been found on the body of the deceased. No incriminating article has been recovered either from the possession of or on the pointing out of the applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2014 is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A. contending that there is firearm wound and he being the resident of the same locality, was identified by the police and hence, is not entitled to be released on bail.
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the 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.
Let the applicant, Rishipal be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 339 of 2014 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Hayat Nagar, District- Sambhal, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the informant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Shalini
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rishipal vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
13 September, 2018
Judges
  • Bala Krishna Narayana
Advocates
  • Ranjeet K Yadav Rajesh Kumar