Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26808 of 2021 Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Hari Krishna Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Piyush Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant and perused the record of the case.
By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 194 of 2020, under sections 364, 302, 201, 34 IPC, police station Farah, district Mathura seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant Hariom lodged first information report on 17.07.2020 for the offence under section 363 IPC, regarding the incident which took place on 15.07.2020 against unknown person alleging inter alia that since 15.07.2020 at about 12 O'clock, his son Rohit is missing.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report and has falsely been implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive without any credible and admissible evidence against him. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 28.07.2020, the informant has given an application to the police mentioning that he came to know that his son Rohit has been kidnapped by accused persons, namely, Viresh, Kamlesh, Vineet, and Rohit. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 30.07.2020. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no eye-witness of the incident and there is no other direct evidence against the applicant except the statement of informant, which is based on suspicion. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the case of the applicant stands on similar footing to that of co-accused Viresh and Vineet, who have already been granted bail vider orders dated 06.01.2021 and 19.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40925 of 2020 and 46727 of 2020 respectively, therefore the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is facing detention since 31.07.2020. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence.Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Mr. Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that it is not the case of parity with co- accused Viresh and Vineet as prior to the incident the applicant had threatened the deceased, but they do not dispute that the facts and evidence, which have been brought on record by the prosecution against the applicant as well as co-accused Viresh and Vineet are identical in nature.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing to that of co-accused Viresh and Vineet, who have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Rohit, 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 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.
(v) The applicant shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) 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.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Sazia Digitally signed by Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh Date: 2021.07.27 17:52:26 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad