.
Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17820 of 2017 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Sonu in Case Crime No.0125 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Partapur, District Meerut.
Heard Sri K.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the case rests on circumstantial evidence; that first circumstance is to be found in the FIR is that the applicant lived in the house of the deceased Bhura who was a eunuch; that the dead body of Bhura was found in his house by his family who reported the matter jumping to conclusion that it was the applicant who had done the deceased to death; that in fact the applicant never lived with the deceased, Bhura; that there is no recovery of any incriminating material/evidence from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing; that the evidence collected by the police is to the effect that prior to the occurrence there was a fight between the applicant and the deceased; that the applicant according to one witness Om Prakash Sharma was seen leaving the deceased's house in a hurry; that the same witness has also said that prior to the occurrence the applicant had beaten up the deceased; and, that in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant there is no such evidence which may complete prima facie, the unbroken chain of circumstances so as to make out a case against the applicant at this stage.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea with the submission that the police have collected material during investigation which shows that the deceased had an altercation with the applicant 3 to 4 days before the occurrence and was seen to leave his house in a hurry. However, there is no direct evidence or account available on record according to the learned AGA also.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, in particular, the fact that it is a case that rests on circumstantial evidence, there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the applicant or at his pointing but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Sonu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Shahroz