Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39430 of 2017 Applicant :- Vishnu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Uttam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. And Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17296 of 2017 Applicant :- Dori Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Sushil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants has filed updated certified copy of the ordersheet of the trial court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A for the State- respondents and perused the record.
Since both bail applications filed by the applicants respectively are arising out of same Case Crime No. 709, 2016, u/s 147, 148, 302 IPC, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura with the prayer for enlarging them on bail, hence, both applications are being disposed of by a common order.
Before dealing with the arguments raised by counsel for the applicants, the facts in brief as stated by the prosecution is that an information was given at Police Station Vrindavan by S.I. Praveeen Kumar Yadav stating that on receiving an information about a fight by the control room the said sub inspector along with other police personnel went to village Chharaura on 20.10.2016 and found dead body of two persons lying in a vacant field of one Baniya. He gather information about the dead bodies and came to know that two daughters namely Geeta and Malti of one Dori Lal resident of village Chharaura were married three years back with Ravi and Manish resident of village Degra, P.S. Jamunapar. However, after sometime of the marriage on account of matrimonial discord and differences Geeta and Malti left their matrimonial home and started living at their parental home (Maika) in village Chharaura with their parents. The first informant also came to know that on 19.10.2016 Manish and Sanjay along with their brother Ravi had gone to fetch their wives in village Chharaura on the occasion of Karvachauth festival. However, family members of Dori Lal had refused to send his daughters along with them, which lead to arguments and thereafter the family members of Dori Lal assaulted Sanjay and Manish and killed them. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that despite information to the family members of the deceased nobody turned up. However, according to the prosecution, the first informant S.I. Praveen Kumar along with relevant papers went to the spot and conducted inquest on both the dead bodies even till then no one from the family of both the deceased reached there as noted in the inquest report. Thereafter the dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case by the first informant. It is argued that first information report was lodged against unknown persons and the allegation made therein that the family members of the applicant Dori Lal had murdered Sanjay and Manish is based on hearsay; that no witness of fact has been cited in the F.I.R. lodged by S.I. Praveen Kumar. He further submitted that on 23.10.2016 an application was moved to Inspector P.S. Vrindavan by the brother of the deceased viz Ravi, who claimed himself to be an eye witness and narrated the manner in which accused Vishnu, Dori Lal and other family members had launched assault on him and his two brothers (deceased). Thereafter the statement of said witness Ravi, who is real brother of both the deceased, was recorded by the I.O. on 24.10.2016 and he was also medically examined on the same day at 3.25 pm. It is argued that as per the statement of the Ravi, after his brothers were murdered before his eyes he went back to his village and had informed his father Ramveer yet no F.I.R. was lodged at the earliest by Ravi, who is also said to have sustained injury in the said incident. It is argued that Ravi has been introduced as injured witness by the prosecution at much belated stage and his conspicuous silence and conduct for not lodging any F.I.R. or getting himself medical examination at the earliest makes his presence and his eye witness account highly doubtful. Except the statement of Ravi there is no other eye witness to support the prosecution case. It is lastly contended that the weapons i.e. iron rod (mussal) was said to be recovered from the house of the applicants on 24.10.2016. He further submitted that so far as alleged injury sustained by the eye witness Ravi appears to be fabricated, inasmuch as doctor has opined it to be simple in nature and his medical examination was conducted on 23.10.2016. It is next contended that the charge in the trial was framed in January, 2017 and till then only I.O. has been examined and no other witness has been produced by the prosecution.
Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However they could not dispute the fact that the prosecution had introduced only sole eye witness of the incident, who is also real brother of both the deceased after four days of the incident. They could not also furnish any satisfactory explanation for conspicuous silence of their star witness Ravi for four days, they could not offer any explanation for the family members of the deceased for not coming forward at the earliest point of time at the spot as well as for lodging of the F.I.R. against the accused.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicants Vishnu and Dori Lal, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicants will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicants will personally appear on each and every date in the court and their personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Dhirendra/