Allahabad High Court
Vinod Rana vs State Of U.P. on 9 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194222 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21697 of 2022 Applicant :- Vinod Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tomar,Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devendra Singh,Pravindra Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pravindra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 313 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Doghat, District- Baghpat, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant by his wife and according to the FIR, on 03.10.2021 after consuming liquor, deceased started making fight with the informant and her husband i.e. applicant and thereafter he picked licensed gun and during scuffling, accidentally fire was made and due to accidental fire, son of the informant sustained injury and died.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 304 IPC but during investigation, case was converted under Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that in the FIR and her statement informant specifically stated that it was a case of accidental firing but when the statement of the wife of the deceased was recorded then she stated that applicant i.e. her father-in-law (father of the deceased) opened three fire upon the deceased due to which, he died and thereafter second statement of the informant was recorded and she repeated the allegation made by her daughter-in-law i.e wife of the deceased.
6. He further submitted that subsequent statement of the informant and statement of the wife of the deceased recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie appears to be false as according to both the statements, applicant opened three fire, which hit the deceased but post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that it was a case of single shot.
7. He further submitted that when wife of the deceased appeared before the trial court then she did not support the prosecution case and she was declared hostile. However, in her examination-in-chief, wife of the deceased stated against the applicant i.e. her father-in-law and her cross-examination is under way. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and is in jail since 04.10.2021 i.e. for more than two years.
8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which father committed the murder of his son and his wife i.e. wife of the deceased is eye-witness and she since beginning stated against the applicant but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that even as per the statement of the wife of the deceased, three fire was made and all three hit the deceased but according to the autopsy report, deceased sustained injury only from single shot. Both the counsels further could not dispute the fact that during trial informant of the case has been declared hostile and applicant i.e. father of the deceased is in jail for more than two years.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
10. From the FIR and from the first statement of the informant, who is wife of the applicant, it appears that it was the case of accidental firing but during investigation, when the statement of the wife of the deceased was recorded then she stated that applicant i.e. father of the deceased opened three fire and all the three hit him and her husband died and thereafter subsequent statement of the informant was recorded and she in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. repeated the version of the wife of the deceased but post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he sustained one entry and exit wound, therefore, it appears to be a case of single shot.
11. Further, during trial informant of the case i.e. wife of the applicant has been declared hostile, however, in examination-in-chief, daughter-in-law of the applicant supported her earlier version given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 04.10.2021 i.e. for more than two years.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant- Vinod Rana be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023 KK Patel