Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8817 of 2019 Applicant :- Sukhendra @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Das Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Dubey
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Sri Anurag Dubey, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against fourteen accused persons, Pawan, Dharmendra, Vipin, Yujvendra @ Sunni, Surendrapal, Gaurab @ Gabbar, Udaiveer, Sonu, Sukhendra @ Kallu, Gurubachan @ Jhunnu, Geetam, Jagbir, Bhojraj and Hariom alleging that on 24.2.2016, they shot fire on Sunil and Vishwa Pratap. Later on Sunil died. Vishwar Pratap had received injuries on stomach. Specific role of shot fire has been assigned to accused Pawan.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Pawan Pratap Singh has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.12.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28041 of 2018 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail, hence the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2017 (more than one year and four months) two cases of criminal history have been properly explained. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Specific role of shot fire has been assigned to accused Pawan. There is cross case which was registered as Case Crime No. 0211 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. in which Pawan had received injury. It is not possible at this to decide who is aggressor. There is no independent witness against the applicant. There is no eye witness account against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no possibility to get this case decided in near future.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Pawan Pratap Singh, who has been enlarged on bail and also admitted that there is cross case.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Sukhendra @ Kallu involved in Case Crime No. 95 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station-Bewar, District-Mainpuri be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 OP