Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while giving statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant Praveen Kumar for the first time has introduced knife also. However, the role of causing injury by knife has not been assigned to any of the accused persons. On the other hand, the other witness Ambrish Dubey has not assigned knife in the hand of any of the co-accused persons. It is next stated in the post-mortem report that six ante-mortem injuries have been found, out of that injury No.1 is lacerated wound of 3 x 3 cm bone deep present on the right side of parietal region and has been fractured. Only this injury is on vital part and rest of the five injuries are on non-vital part. Who has caused the injury No.1 is not clear from the prosecution version, as the general role of assault has been levelled on all the five accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in fact the informant is not the eye-witness. This fact is evident from the murder of Panchu and Manoj, in which the informant Praveen Kumar is the main accused. Praveen Kumar and his associates committed the murder of Panchu and Manoj to take revenge of murder of the deceased in this case, which is apparent from the statement of Praveen after his arrest in connection with the double murder of Panchu and Manoj. Praveen Kumar informant has stated that in the murder of his brother Dilip he did not have the full knowledge of this case and Panchu and Manoj were not named in the F.I.R. lodged by him. When he came to know that these two persons were involved, to take revenge, he committed murder of Panchu and Manoj.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused namely Arun Kumar Dubey having similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2021 passed in bail No. 25.03.2021. Another co-accused namely Gopal has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.03.2021 passed in bail No. 1458/2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant rather general role has been assigned to all the co-accused persons. The role assigned to the present applicant as well as co-accused namely Arun Kumar Dubey and Gopal are similar. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 23 and 24 of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2019.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that it is a case of parity.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.
Let the applicant, Vinod Kumr Dubey, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 394/2019, under Sections 147/302/323/324/506 IPC, Police Station - Kharighat, District - Bahraich, be released on bail on his 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 the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 8.4.2021 R.C.