Heard Sri Shanti Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned brief-holder 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-Shubham Singh @ Mahendra Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.571 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, registered at Police Station Naini, District Allahabad.
This is the second bail application.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39298 of 2018 (Shubham Singh @ Mahendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) by Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava, J. (as he then was).
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the trial in the present case has started in which P.W.1 and 2 have been examined and they have assigned the specific role of firing to co-accused Ankur Yadav and Piyush Shukla. The contract killing was undertaken by co-accused Manish Pandey, as such the implication of the applicant in the present case as had been previously stated that he along with co-accused Sagar Singh had caused the fire-arm injury upon the deceased who had received two fire-arm injuries is incorrect and false. It is further argued that identically placed co-accused Sagar Singh has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42618 of 2019, copy of the said order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. It is further argued that the applicant is being involved in three other criminal cases which have been disclosed and explained in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit which are stated to be cases in which the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail since 30.5.2018.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Sagar Singh has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court who as per the prosecution case was initially given identical role as that of the applicant but later on in the statement of P.W.1 and 2 version has been changed and the role of firing upon the deceased has been stated to be by co-accused Ankur Yadav and Piyush Shukla.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Shubham Singh @ Mahendra Singh, 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 4.2.2021 Gaurav