Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21856 of 2018 Applicant :- Vibhuti Nath Jha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Singh,Sadhna Upadhyaya,Sant Sharan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Yash Dev Upadhyaya holding brief of Mrs. Sadhna Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Vibhuti Nath Jha with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.425 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sector 39, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that the FIR has been lodged on 14.04.2017 against unknown persons with the allegation that an unknown dead body wrapped in quilt and tied with rope was lying on road side towards Sector 46, Noida and a passerby, namely, Dileep Kumar Gautam had lodged the FIR under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that Amit, Sanjeev and Rajeev are real brothers and it is Amit whose body was lying on the road side for which the present FIR has been lodged. It has been argued that Dolly is sister-in-law (saali) of Sanjeev and Sanjeev is real brother of deceased. The deceased had an illicit relationship with Dolly. The deceased had supported her financially in opening a courier company in which one Ashutosh Jha used to work. The applicant is father of Ashutosh Jha. In the statement of father of the deceased, namely, Bhola Prasad Jha, it has come that he suspects that Santosh and Dolly are involved in the murder of his son Amit. In the first statement of Bhola and third statement of Rajeev, brother of the deceased, it has come that they did not like the relationship between Dolly and Amit (deceased). Sanjeev the brother-in-law (jeeja) of Dolly has also given statement that his wife Vibha had told him that Ashutosh @ Raja son of the applicant used to visit Dolly's place and since Ashutosh was also having relationship with Dolly, there were differences between Ashutosh and Amit and they entered into hot talks and fight regarding the same on 12.04.2017. It has further been stated that on 12.04.2017 Ashutosh son of the applicant and Amit had entered into a fight in which the deceased sustained injuries on his head and he fell down. There was blood in the room of Dolly which was cleaned by her. The same statement has been given by Vibha, wife of Sanjeev (real brother of deceased Amit). She has further stated that her sister Dolly had shared the incident dated 12.04.2017 with her and had requested her not to tell the same to anyone, but she shared the same with her husband Sanjeev. For the first time in the third statement of the father of the deceased the name of the applicant surfaced and he raised suspicion that the applicant had conspired in murder of his son. Rajeev one of the brother's of the deceased has also supported the same statement. The third statement of the father of the deceased has been given after nine months from the date of incident. There is no other evidence on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel lastly submitted that Dolly and Santosh are absconding and they have left their village which they never did prior to this incident. This fact has also been mentioned in the statement of Sanjeev, the real brother of the deceased. Therefore, by the conduct of Ashutosh, Santosh and Dolly, it appears that they were involved in the murder of Amit. Learned counsel has also pressed the period of detention as the applicant is in jail since 23.02.2018. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Anand Sri./-