Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36332 of 2018 Applicant :- Shivdutt Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Ajay Vikram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Agrawal Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A today in Court are taken on record.
Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is father of the first informant and husband of Pushpa Devi deceased and has been falsely implicated by his son on account of property dispute; that applicant is 82 years old infirm person, who bequeathed his properties in favour of his grand sons Saifal and Shubham, sons of co-accused Brahmdutt, whose wife had died earlier; that previously applicant and his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi (deceased) bequeathed their property in favour of their grand sons on 30.09.1997 but subsequently, by executing another will deed on 04.07.2001 in favour of their son Ghanshyam and his bride, they cancelled earlier will deed dated 30.09.1997; that again on 04.03.2017, superseding will dated 04.07.2001 applicant and his wife executed a fresh registered will deed in favour of their grand-children Saifal and Subham due to which his other sons were annoyed; that it appears that in absence of applicant his sons Bhagwan and Ghanshyam in conspiracy with each other caused death of their mother Pushpa Devi and falsely implicated applicant; that the prosecution story is absolutely false and highly improbable; that on the fateful day the applicant was not at home rather had gone to Fatehabad, District Agra; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false, concocted and incorrect; that applicant had no motive to cause death of his wife and all the story is concocted just to falsely implicate the applicant; that it is wrong to say that there were any blood stains over the baniyan or body of applicant and is unbelievable that applicant continued to wear the blood stained baniyan for two days till his arrest after two days; that recovery of knife at his pointing has been falsely planted of which there is no independent witness; that applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant is also entitled for bail in view of the proviso to Section 437(i) of Cr.P.C; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 28.03.2018.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that dead body of deceased Smt. Pushpa Devi has been recovered from the locked house of applicant upon breaking the locks by first informant; that applicant has been arrested after two days of incident when he was trying to abscond and at that time he was wearing the same blood stained baniyan; that recovery of knife has been made at the pointing of applicant from the bed.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment; as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Shivdutt be released on bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Ashok Gupta