Allahabad High Court
Vijendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 January, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48285 of 2020 Applicant :- Vijendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record. Sri S.K. Pandey, appears on behalf of first informant he has filed his Vaklatnama, which is taken on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Vijendra Singh seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1001 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr.
As per the prosecution case the deceased Neeraj Kumar who is the husband of the first informant Smt. Gunjan Verma went missing on 27.07.2020 regarding which a missing report was lodged by her on 28.07.2020 which was stated to have been got registered in a hurry and first information report was later on got registered by her on 29.07.2020 i.e. after two days in which she has mentioned that her husband was having many cases pending against him and the accused persons were pressurizing him to get the same settled, her husband had refused the same and under a conspiracy he has been eliminated.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. He has argued that a person Vijendra who is the son of late Ram Prasad is an accused who has been named in the first information report but the applicant is Vijendra Singh son of Babu Singh who is not named therein. It is argued that subsequently in the second statement of the first informant Smt. Gunjan Verma a copy of the statement annexed as annexure no. 6, it was for the first time she has named the applicant and co-accused Brijesh and two persons who came to her and have given an extra judicial confession to her of getting the murder done in conspiracy from Raj Kumar and Ashu by paying Rs. 3 laks. It is further argued that two other persons namely Surya Pratap and Surendra Singh were interrogated by Investigating Officer who have also stated that the applicant and co-accused Brajesh had given their extra judicial confession to them. It is further argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the pointing out or possession of the applicant. The Doctor conducted the postmortem examination on 29.07.2020 and has opined that the death was about two days back. Further, learned counsel for the applicant argued that co-accused Brajesh whose case is identical to that from the applicant has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2020 passed in Criminal Mics. Bail Application No. 42226 of 2020 (Brajesh Vs. State of U.P.) a copy of the order has been placed before the court which is taken on record. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 13 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.08.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant has given his extra judicial confession before the first informant and two other persons which goes to show about his involvement. It is further argued that the applicant is involved in another case under Sections 147, 323 and 506 IPC also.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and co-accused who has been granted bail, it is a fit case for bail, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Vijendra Singh, 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 :- 4.1.2021 Vikram