Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44167 of 2020 Applicant :- Suresh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay,Ranjit Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukhtar Alam
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Ranjit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that applicant is not named in the FIR. FIR was lodged on the basis of information given by the deceased himself to his family members. Referring to the contents of the FIR, it was further argued that deceased told to the family members that some one has made fire arm injury to him. It was further argued that family members reached at the place of incident and took him to hospital but he died. It was next contended that when informant was interrogated by the Investigating Officer he did not say anything against the applicant. For the first time during investigation witness Junaid shows suspicion regarding commission of the offence against the applicant. Motive was also suggested by him to commit the present offence. Referring to the aforesaid facts and statement of the witnesses it was also argued that none has seen the incident. Entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the statement of witness Shubham Kashyap it was also argued that if this statement is taken into consideration then also none has seen the applicant making fire arm injury to the applicant. Applicant was also working as Security Guard in Park Overseas situated near the place of occurrence. Thus, his presence at the place of occurrence was to perform his duty. It is next argued that chain of the circumstantial evidence is not linked with each other to form an irresistible conclusion. Applicant is in jail since 12.08.2020 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 informant and learned AGA argued that although deceased did not disclose the name of the applicant yet witness Junaid shows suspicion against the applicant and motive was also suggested against the applicant to commit the present offence. Referring to the statement of the witness Shubham Kashyap it was also argued that he has clearly stated regarding presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence at the time of commission of the offence. Applicant had returned at the place of occurrence before the information given by the deceased to his family members. This fact is substantiated with the C.C.T.V. footage. Weapon said to have been used in the commission of the crime has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Thus, chain of the circumstantial evidence to form an irresistible conclusion regarding the guilt of the applicant is complete.
Applicant and only applicant has committed the present offence for the reasons disclosed by the witness. A prima facie case is made out.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, complicity of the accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the FIR, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Suresh Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 1016 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the 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.
6. The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
7. 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Sachdeva