Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 21 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Nehtaur, district-Bijnor, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 25/26.1.2019. The F.I.R. was lodged by Vichitra Singh, father of the deceased after recovery of the dead body of the deceased from a field. He further argued that though the applicant was named in the F.I.R. along with other co-accused persons but there is no cogent evidence against him except the evidence of Satnam Singh, who happens to be the real brother of the informant and uncle of the deceased whose statement was recorded after eight days of the incident on 2.2.2019. He submits that though the said witness had seen the applicant along with the deceased along with coaccused but he did not inform the informant about the same which goes to show that the implication of the applicant is an afterthought. He further argued that motive to commit the crime is with co-accused Sohit as he suspected that the deceased was having some illicit relationship with his sister. He argued that after three days of the incident when the applicant was arrested, recovery of one knife is shown from the possession but no blood stain was found on the same. He submits that the case rests on circumstantial evidence.
It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present accused and the other co-accused were nominated in the FIR and the alleged last seen evidence is against both of them. The only difference is that a country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the present accused and a knife was recovered from the possession of the co-accused. The alleged recovery of 'fawda' was also shown from the joint possession of the applicant and the other co-accused. As per postmortem report there were 33 incised wounds found on the dead body of the deceased and only one gun shot wound was found on the dead body of the deceased. It is also contended that the other co-accused Prashant who was armed with knife has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.12.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54145 of 2019. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 28.1.2019 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering that co-accused Prashant, who has allegedly assaulted the deceased with knife and the deceased had received 33 incised wounds in his body, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court 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 the trial.
Let the applicant, Shohit be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019/Faridul.