Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43231 of 2015 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju @ Bony Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Gour,Anil Kumar Pathak,Bhishm Pal Singh,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, 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. 44 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366-A, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District-Allahabad (Now Prayagraj) and is in jail since 02.04.2015, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that victim-Sonali had disappeared while going to the school on 5.3.2014 and an F.I.R. in this regard was lodged by his father at P.S. Cantt., District Allahabad on 13.3.2014 against unknown person. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that an unknown body of a young girl was recovered from Vindhyachal on 24.4.2014 and an F.I.R. in this regard was lodged at P.S. Vindhyachal on 24.4.2014 against unknown person. After the dead body of unknown girl was identified by her brother, Virendra Kumar as that of victim-Sonali, the instant case was altered to one under Section 302 I.P.C. He next submitted that the name of the applicant as an accused surfaced for the first time in the statement of his own uncle, Suresh Kumar on 23.9.2014 in which he had stated that the applicant had come to his house along with victim-Sonali and after he had come to know that the girl eloped with his nephew, he had asked them to go away. In the statement of Rajesh and Ramesh recorded subsequently, they had stated that the applicant had met them with victim-Sonali. He next submitted that neither any incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing out of the application or from his possession and the statements of Suresh Kumar, Rajesh and Ramesh are not sufficient to connect the applicant with the murder of the deceased. He next submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 2.4.2015, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant 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 his trial.
Let the applicant, Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju @ Bony 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. 44 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366-A, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District- Allahabad (Now Prayagraj), 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 the principle as has been laid down in the 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 :- 29.5.2019 SA