Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53741 of 2021 Applicant :- Vimlesh @ Valesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi,Pradeep Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Vimlesh @ Valesh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 391 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504, 325/34 IPC, P.S. Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad during pendency of trial.
Perusal of record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.12.20215, a prompt F.I.R. dated 07.12.2015 was lodged by first informant Jawahar Lal and was registered as Case Crime No. 391 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504, 325/34 IPC, P.S. Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., 10 persons namely Ravindra, Nanhe, Rajendra, Abhinendra, Siyaram, Netrapal, Nilesh, Hariom, Valesh and Vimlesh have been nominated as accused.
According to prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 07.12.2015, some dispute took place in between the parties, as the named accused persons are alleged to have dismantled the boundary of the field belonging to the first informant, which was opposed by first informant. F.I.R. further states that named accused who were armed with rifles, country made guns and sharp edged weapons assaulted Dharmal, Gyan Singh and Shyam Singh, in which they sustained injuries.
In respect of the same incident, another F.I.R. dated 7.12.2015 was lodged by Netra Pal and was registered as Case Crime No. 391 A of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 IPC. In the aforesaid F.I.R. eight persons namely Gyan Singh, Man Singh, Shyam Singh, Bajpal, Manohar Lal, Dharmpal, Shivrata and Satish have been nominated as named accused.
Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R. giving rise to Case Crime No. 391 of 2005, the injured Dharmpal, Gyan Singh and Shyam Singh were medically examined. Their medico legal reports are on record as Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application Subsequently, one of the injured Dharmpal died. His post mortem report is on record as Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that in the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was comma, due to ante mortem head injuries. Autopsy Surgeon found following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-
"1. Stitched wound 3 cm long with 2 stitches over right side skull 7 cm above right ear.
On dissection right side parietal and frontal bone haematoma present over skin and muscles.
2. Old lacerated wound with scab over it 1 cm x 0.5 cm over left side upper part of abdomen and lower chest 10 cm below left nipple it is muscle deep probe not piercing through and through and not entering the abdominal cavity."
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents and has no criminal history to his credit. No recovery has been made from applicant. Applicant is in jail since 12.11.2021. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is then submitted that occurrence is admitted, but the question to be decided during course of trial as to who is the aggressor. Other named accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Their bail orders are on record as Annexure 9 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of other co-accused. There is no distinguishable feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished. As such applicant is also liable to be given the benefit of parity. On the cumulative strength of aforesaid, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state and upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and accusation made, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Vimlesh @ Valesh involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 I.P.C..
(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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
The party is permitted to file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court before the court concerned, who shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of Allahabad High Court and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 HSM