Allahabad High Court
Omji Pachauri vs State Of U.P. on 7 July, 2020
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9814 of 2020 Applicant :- Omji Pachauri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Upadhyay,A Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arjun Singh Yadav,Ray Sahab Yadav Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Omji Pachauri, in connection with Case Crime No. 098 of 2018, (S.T. No. 128 of 2018) under Sections 363, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Rampura, District Jalaun.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that it is a case which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. He submits that circumstances appearing against him are apparently incomplete and deficient on the basis of which he could not be detained pending trial. It is submitted that there is hearsay evidence about last seen coming from Shiv Shanker Singh who in turn was informed by Surendra Singh that he had seen the applicant in the company of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is evidence of extra judicial confession against the applicant on the basis of which recovery of a knife, said to be the murder weapon, has been attributed to the applicant but it is pointed out that this recovery is after a period of two months from a public place, that is to say, a bush by the road side that is frequented by many. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that there is not much weight that can be attributed to the aforesaid recovery claimed, which otherwise too, has not been witnessed by any independent witness. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 25.05.2018.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the evidence appearing against the applicant is circumstantial, the fact that much of the evidence is prima facie hearsay, the fact that recovery attributed to the applicant is not very clinching prima facie, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Omji Pachauri involved in Case Crime No. 098 of 2018 (S.T. No. 128 of 2018), under Sections 363, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Rampura, District Jalaun be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 7.7.2020 Pcl