Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26967 of 2021 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Gond Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chandra Yadav
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Vinay Kumar Gond, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.203 of 2021, under Section 34, 307, 308, 302 IPC, registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Mau.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is named in the FIR but has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that five accused persons including the applicant have been named as an accused and initially common role of lathi, danda and gandasa was assigned to them but later on in the FIR it was stated that co-accused Prabhakar was armed with gandasa and he assaulted to Jai Ram on his head as a result of which he received serious injury. Jai Ram was initially medically examined and the doctor has noted five injuries on his body but injury no.1 was on the head for which C.T examination was advised. It is further argued that the other four injuries are on the index finger, middle femur and lower femur and complaint of pain on the chest. There are two other injured persons Rahul Yadav who has been found and noted to have had three injuries but the doctor has opined the said injuries to be simple in nature and Kalindi Devi was also examined and two injuries were noted which were also opined to be simple in nature. The postmortem examination of the deceased Jai Ram was conducted in which the doctor has opined the cause of death as coma due to ante-mortem head injury. It is further argued that in the FIR five accused persons are named but later on in the statement of Rahul Yadav one of the alleged injured person, he has stated that there were eight accused persons who have committed the offence. It is further argued that Mahesh and Prabhu Nath were also examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who have stated about the participation of eight persons in the present case. It is further argued that looking to the nature of case and the facts therein, the common and general role has been assigned to the applicant but co-accused Prabhakar is stated to have been armed with gandasa and said to have assaulted Jai Ram on his head. Even from the side of the applicant, Jai Prakash Gond has received injury who was medically examined and was found to have received five injury in which injury no.1 was on the head which was on vital part of the body, copy of the injury report is annexed as Annexure No.13 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application, as such implication of the applicant in the present case is false and even the genesis of the occurrence and the injury received from the side of the applicant has been suppressed by the prosecution. It is further argued that common and general role has been assigned to the applicant along with three other co-accused persons and barring Prabhakar who is alleged to have been armed with gandasa and assaulted the deceased and two other persons but there is no specification whatsoever and later on eight accused persons including five named in the FIR have been stated to have participated in the crime. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 6.5.2021.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and has been assigned the role of participating in the occurrence. The implication of the applicant is on the basis of Section 34 IPC in the present matter. Learned AGA has also adopted of the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant and three other co-accused persons have been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased and the injured persons. The deceased died due to head injury which as per FIR has been stated to have been caused by co-accused Prabhakar with gandasa. The injuries of other two injured have been opined to be simple in nature. The injured and two other persons have subsequently stated about participation of eight accused persons in the present matter There is an injured from the side of the applicant.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Vinay Kumar Gond, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Gaurav