Since the aforesaid connected bail applications arise out of same crime number, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both bail applications are being disposed of by a common order.
Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh and Ms. Shabana Nizam, learned counsel appearing for the applicant - Sushil Giri @ Golu as well as Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant - Anil Yadav @ Ram Anil Yadav and learned A.G.A for the State as well as Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant in both the matters and perused the record.
It is submitted by Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed present offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. F.I.R. was lodged in this matter against unknown persons. Informant did not disclose the name of the accused persons at the time of inquest. Witness, who has disclosed the name of the applicant in commission of the present offence, was also one of the witnesses of the inquest proceeding. Referring to the statement of the informant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., it is further argued that the informant has not disclosed the name of the accused persons in it. For the first time, name of the applicant surfaced in the statement of Satyam Yadav, which is also based on suspicion only. None has seen the incident. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the statement of the witnesses and further argued that entire prosecution case is based on suspicion. In fact, the incident did not take place in the manner as alleged in the allegations. Strong suspicion cannot be a ground to prosecute the applicant. Motive suggested by the prosecution against the applicant is a weak piece of evidence. It is further argued that recovery is false and planted and is not supported with any independent evidence. Revolver said to have been recovered in this matter could also not be connected with this matter. Criminal cases shown as criminal history have been duly explained. Some of them have been planted after the arrest of the applicant in this matter. Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.10.2020 and in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Sri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that only role of hatching conspiracy has been assigned to the applicant - Anil Yadav @ Ram Anil Yadav. Recovery shown against him is also false and planted, which is not supported by any independent evidence. Motive suggested by the prosecution against this applicant is also a weak piece of evidence.Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.10.2020 and in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that a clear motive has been stated by the witnesses against the applicants for committing the present offence. There is recovery of weapon on pointing out / from possession of the applicant said to have been used in commission of the crime. It is further argued that charge has been framed against the applicants. There is long criminal history of the applicants. If they are released on bail, they will again threaten / influence the witnesses.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of witnesses, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.
Let applicants Sushil Giri alias Golu and Anil Yadav @ Ram Anil Yadav involved in Case Crime No.345 of 2020 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kerakat, District - Jaunpur 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 following conditions :
1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
4. The applicants 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
The party shall file self-attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. 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.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 ss