Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17674 of 2016 Applicant :- Sudhir @ Kala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Dharmendra Singhal,Mohd. Aslam,Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed, by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record.
List revised. No one present on behalf of the first informant.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal and Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion; that as per prosecution case, Amrish 18 years old son of first informant was allegedly fetched by applicant on 29.12.2015 at about 1:00 p.m., on the pretext of providing him service with handsome salary and when he did not return for several days he lodged a missing report on 25.1.2016 and when the co-accused persons Anuj, Vinod and their mother Memo wife of Jasveer, the relatives of applicant did not disclose anything then suspicion arose in his mind as to his son may have been eliminated; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 05.02.2016. the deceased has fetched by applicant in presence of Arvind and Ajai Kumar but in the missing report lodged on 25.1.2016 at Annexure 2 there is no whisper of presence of Arvind and Ajai at that time; that the applicant is alleged to be relative of co- accused persons and they are alleged to have kidnapped Amrish in conspiracy with each other; that it is also noteworthy that in the missing report there is no whisper that Amrish was fetched by Sudhir for providing service rather it has been stated that he was fetched for going somewhere and when being enquired he replied that he has left him and he will return in a day or two; that there is no incriminating evidence against applicant except his confessional statement in police custody in which he allegedly confessed the crime by stating that since Amrish had entice away sister-in-law of Vinod and Anuj so feeling insulted he decided to eliminate Amrish and kidnapped him on the pretext of providing service and caused his death by causing injuries with the brick which is also alleged to have been recovered on his pointing; that the confessional statement of applicant in police custody is not admissible in evidence and the recovery of piece of brick has been falsely planted of which there is no independent witness; that the postmortem report states that deceased sustained three incised wound out of which one was brain deep and two were bone deep and one was over head and the other were over right index finger; that the nature of injuries mentioned in postmortem report may not be caused by a piece of brick; that the applicant did not fetch deceased on pretext of providing service or otherwise and may not have any motive to cause death of Amrish; that entire prosecution story is false and concocted; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 14.2.2016.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, 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 Sudhir @ Kala be released on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2016, under Sections 302, 364, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Gangoh, District Saharanpur, 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 :- 28.11.2018/Md Faisal