Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40134 of 2019 Applicant :- Seetaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Sri S.P. S. Chauhan, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Kishra (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State, Sri S.P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Horipal, Pramod, Seeta Ram and Ashok alleging that on 25.9.2018 at 03:33 hours they killed Sachin. He died receiving two gun shot injuries and lacerated wounds. During investigation, four empty cartridges and one country made pistol with cartridge used in the crime were recovered at the pointing out of co-accused-Horipal and in statements of Saurav and Gaurav they stated that deceased was killed by short fire of Horipal.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 12.5.2019 (more than four months) having no criminal history. On 14.12.2018 final report was submitted against the applicant because his location was found in Delhi on the date of incident. Later an order was passed for further investigation and applicant was roped under Section 120-B of I.P.C. There is no independent witness. Even though according to statements of witnesses, namely, Saurav and Gaurav, main role of shot fire is assigned to Horipal and country made pistol with cartridges used in the crime were also recovered at the pointing out of co- acused-Horipal and the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused-Horipal. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that deceased had sold a land of Rs.22.5 lacs, out of which Rs.5 lac (five lac) was transferred in the account of the applicant; hence there is a strong motive against the applicant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this money was transferred in the account of the deceased according to sale deed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.
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 Seetaram involved in Case Crime No. 791 of 2018, under Section 302/34, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Naujheel, District- Mathura be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him 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 :- 27.9.2019 OP