Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17775 of 2018 Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Sharma,Ajay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,P.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant/first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
According to prosecution case, on 11th December, 2017 at 11:30 a.m., it was informed that Anang Pal son of Ranveer Singh met with an accident wherein he received injuries. He was admitted in a hospital by the police and during treatment he died. Thereafter on the same date, at 12:50, the same version was mentioned in the inquest report (panchayatnama). In the inquest report it was mentioned that the cause of death is due to accident. On the same date, at 02:50 p.m. the dead body of the deceased Anang Pal was sent for post mortem. Thereafter the first information report was lodged by the first informant, namely, Ajay Kumar against five persons including the applicant, namely, Rohit, Rahul, Surendra, Indrapal and Virendra alleging therein that on 11th December, 2017 at 5:45 a.m., when the applicant, applicant's brother Anangpal and applicant's bhabhi were going through a motorcycle, the applicant and other co-accused came through a Car and stopped the motorcycle of Anangpal. On the exhortation of the applicant and another co-accused Virendra, another co-accused Rohit shot fire on the deceased Anangpal and another co-accused Indrapal assaulted the deceased with a knife. He received injuries and resultantly he died in the hospital.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that false implication of the applicant in the present case is of an afterthought; main roles have been assigned to another co-accused, namely, Rohit and Indrapal while the role assigned to the applicant is of exhortation only; the deceased received only one gun shot injury, there is no eye-witness account against the applicant; there is no independent witness against the applicant; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 13.02.2018 (more than three and half months) having no criminal history.
Learned counsel for the complainant and Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused.
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 Surendra involved in the Case Crime No. 1084 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, P.S. Kankarkhera, District Meerut be released on bail on his 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, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant 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.
(Aniruddha Singh, J.) Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Sushil/-