Allahabad High Court
Sarvendra vs State Of U.P. on 16 March, 2021
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25745 of 2020 Applicant :- Sarvendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Dubey,Ghan Shyam Das Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alkesh Singh,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, 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 Sarvendra with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that the first information report was lodged by one Subhash in respect of the incident dated 18.10.2019 which took place at 08:00 P.M. and the first information report was lodged on the next day at 06:50 A.M. making allegations that the named accused persons who were six in numbers came carrying in their hands licency rifle, gun and country made pistol and caused indiscriminate firing in order to kill Reshma Devi and two other injured Sughar Singh and Ashok Singh. In the said offence Reshma Devi had died and two others sustained fire arm injuries. Submission is that the investigation started pursuant to the said first information report and the statement of the eye witnesses were recorded including the informant Subhash and other injured witnesses and all of them have supported the first information report version. Subsequently after more than a month, one witness namely Jyoti was re-examined by the I.O. and she made a statement implicating the accused-applicant and two others absolving the named accused persons with regard to their participation in the incident. On the basis of her statement, the named accused persons were exonerated by the I.O. and the investigation proceeded against the accused-applicant and two others including the informant of this case. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against those persons. Two accused-persons were released on bail by the order of the court below and the bail application of the present accused-applicant was rejected solely on the ground that the accused-applicant was having criminal history of several cases and a recovery of country made pistol was shown against him. Submission is that subsequent statement of witness namely Jyoti is in complete contradiction with her earlier statement which was recorded by the I.O. Therefore, it has been submitted that considering the contradiction in the statement of witness Jyoti, the accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Further submission is that the bail application was wrongly rejected by the court below solely on the basis of criminal history which was sown against him. The accused-applicant is prepared to furnish the surety and bond and is giving undertaking that he will cooperate in trial. 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. The applicant has been in jail since 17.02.2020, hence, he is entitled to bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. They have further submitted that after investigation, the police has already filed charge sheet in the matter. But they were unable to give answer to this fact that once the said witness Jyoti has supported the first information report version, after a month, why she gave the entirely contradictory statement implicating the accused-applicant and other two persons, how this anomaly in her statement can be resolved.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that two other co-accused persons have already been released on bail by the court below and also the finding that the accused-applicant has been booked on the basis of the subsequent statement of witness Jyoti, 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 sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that applicant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021 sailesh