Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37958 of 2018 Applicant :- Sachin @ China Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
Perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Sachin @ China in Case Crime No. 137 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 307, 511, 452, 323, 352, 376 I.P.C., 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Aurangabad, District- Bulandshahar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the first information report. According to the prosecution version, on 22.03.2018 at about 2 A.M. when the informant was sleeping along with his other family members, five miscreants suddenly barged in his house and attempted to kidnap his minor daughter aged about 17 years. The assailants were also armed with firearm weapons and they started firing. It is stated that they have recognized one Harit Kumar out of the five miscreants. It is stated in the F.I.R. that while the firing was being exchanged, in the scuffle one of the miscreants got injured and he was nabbed by them. The said miscreant disclosed that in fact, the said vehicle Scorpio was hired by the main assailants and he has nothing to do with the commission of crime. In the said incident some inmates of the informant have also sustained injuries caused by the miscreants. It is next contended that the applicant was arrested in a fake encounter on 27.04.2018 in which he has stated to have confessed his guilty of taking part in the aforesaid incident. In the affidavits of the injured witnesses and the victim dated 02.06.2018 given to the police, it is alleged that on the date when the applicant was arrested they had also reached at the police station and had identified the applicant to be one of the miscreants. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that when the applicant was arrested, recovery memo was prepared and there was no such mention of the fact that the witnesses had also arrived at the police station and had identified the applicant. He further pointed out that except the confession there is no reliable allegation against the applicant and no value can be attached to the affidavit made by the injured witnesses and the victim after more than two months that they had arrived at the police station and had identified the applicant. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 27.04.2018, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ravi Gurjar and Ujjwal have already been enlarged on bail vide orders sated 9.8.2018 and 27.8.2018. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. It is thus urged that the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that so far as the incident is concerned one of the miscreants was got injured in the process of cross firing and two persons from the family of informant also received injuries. He next submitted that in any view the case of co-accused Harit against whom the prosecutrix has also levelled the alleged offence is distinguishable from that of the applicant. However, he could not dispute that applicant was not named in the first information report and he was not put for identification as required under law and in the arrest memo of the applicant there is no mention of the fact that the witnesses had come to the police station and had identified the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant- Sachin @ China be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Arshad