Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39612 of 2018 Applicant :- Satyam Jha @ Vikki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against six accused persons, namely, Vinay Jha, Vinod Jha, wife of Vinay, Vikki, Vimal Jha and Anoop Jha alleging that on 24.11.2017 at about 18:00 p.m. they assaulted Vijay Yadav due to previous enmity and he received injuries, i.e incised wound, lacerated wound, abrasion, contusion and one stab wound, resultantly died; it has been specifically stated in the statement of informant that the main role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned against co- accused Poonam; the role of the applicant is extended to only catching hold; it is also an admitted fact that at the time of incident this accused was not present at the place of occurrence and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted only under Section 120B I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the role of this accused is extended to only catching hold and at the time of incident he was not present at the place of occurrence; according to CCTV footage of his house the Investigating Officer admitted that this accused was not present on the spot; hence charge-sheet was submitted under Section 120B I.P.C; the deceased was accused before this incident in the case of under Section 307 I.P.C, hence the applicant has been falsely implication in the present case; there is no independent witness against the applicant. It is also submitted that co-accused, Vinod Jha, Vinay Jha have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 3.5.2018 and 10.5.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13616 of 2018 and 17478 of 2018 respectively and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing to that of aforesaid co-accused, hence the applicant is entitled for bail. Further, in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 26.11.2017 (more than one year two months) having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused. He also could not dispute the claim of parity to the present applicant.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Satyam Jha @ Vikk involved in the Case Crime No. 54 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Armapur, District Kanpur Nagar 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 with 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 breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Iss/