Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17086 of 2021 Applicant :- Shahid Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jawahir Yadav
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jawahir Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shahid, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 662 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, registered at P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad.
First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 13.8.2020 by Khalil Ahmed, father of the deceased, against the applicant only stating that on 10.8.2020 at about 12:00 pm, applicant, who is his neighbour, took away his daughter, aged about 18 years, on a motor-cycle. She was seen by persons going with the applicant. She did not return back. She was searched a lot but could not be traced. On 13.10.2020, he found a news about an unknown girl, who was found dead, which was being flashed on the social media, he identified the said girl as his daughter from her clothes and physique. It is further mentioned that applicant enticed away his daughter and has murdered her. He is absconding since then.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the dead body of the girl was recovered on 10.8.2020 and the post- mortem of the same was conducted on 11.8.2020 as an unknown body in which cause of death was opined as shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injury. It is further argued that delay in lodging the First Information Report of 3 days is unexplained. It is next argued that after lodging of first information report, there are witnesses who have stated about the applicant taking away the deceased with him which is an afterthought. It is argued that implication of the applicant is on the basis of suspicion only. There is no eye-witness to the murder. It is further argued that there was an enmity between the applicant and the first informant with regard to a vehicle in which both the parties were challaned under Section 151 and 107/116 Cr.P.C., as has been stated in paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph no. 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 14.8.2020.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and it is argued that applicant was seen by Akram Ahmed and Nawajish, taking away the deceased with her on the motor-cycle on 10.8.2020 after which she was found dead. It is further argued that as such applicant is involved in this case.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The first informant report has been lodged after three days of the going of the deceased with the applicant as alleged. There is no eye-witness to the murder. There was enmity between the parties as is being pleaded and not denied. I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Shahid, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 21.12.2021 A.P. Pandey (Samit Gopal, J.)