Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15102 of 2021 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishnu Shankar Mishra
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 436 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Etawah with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The First Information Report was lodged against three accused persons - Chhote, Sonu (applicant) and Jagannath. In the FIR it has been mentioned that at about 8:00 P.M. on 07.11.2020 Chhote had called Ranjeet Singh @ Monu (the son of complainant) on the pretext that he had to talk with him regarding the money. At about 9:00 P.M. the complainant had talk with his son on phone and he asked his son where he was, then, he said that he is at the house of Jagannath and is talking with them about the money. Further the FIR version is that the complainant received phone call of Civil Lines Police Station at about 1:00 A.M. in night that dead body of his son is lying at Railway track, Rahatpura. It was apprehended that the present accused along with other co-accused had killed the son of complainant due to old enmity.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as per the FIR version the dead body of the deceased was found on 11.07.2020 on the railway track and on the other hand, in the application of the complainant given to the SHO, Civil Lines, Etawah it has been mentioned by him that his son Ranjit Singh @ Monu had gone somewhere on 07.11.2020 and he had come to the District Hospital Etawah after receiving an information that the dead body of his son is lying in the mortuary, District Hospital, Etawah and the said dead body was identified by the complainant as of his son. The learned counsel submits that there is factual contradiction in the prosecution story set up in the FIR and in the application given by the complainant to the SHO of the concerned police station. Further the FIR was lodged on 22.11.2021 after a delay of about 15 days and no specific reason was given as to why the FIR was lodged so delayed, thus, it makes the prosecution story doubtful. Further submission is that the present FIR was lodged after creating last seen evidence against the accuse persons including the present applicant. It is also argued that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of this accused or co-accused. There is no reliable evidence against the applicant except the last seen evidence being alleged at the belated stage fifteen days after the incident. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2021 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Saurabh Pandey, advocate, holding brief of Shri Vishnu Shankar Mishra, advocate, appearing for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the period of detention of the applicant, considering the factual contradiction in the prosecution story, considering that there is no other cogent evidence except the last seen evidence and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant Sonu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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;
(2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
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.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 LBY