Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1538 of 2021 Applicant :- Satish Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar Mishra,Pravesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hari Narayan Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Vijendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Satish Chandra seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 806 of 2020, under Sections 302, 326, 504, 506, 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegation against the applicant in the First Information Report is of calling the deceased on phone and then catching hold of the deceased and exhorting the other accused persons to pour petrol on him and set him on fire after which the other co-accused namely Ram Pravesh is said to have poured petrol upon the deceased and Ram Parvesh along with another son-in-law of Pullu have set him on fire. It is argued that as such the role has been assigned to the applicant is distinguishable with that of other two co-accused persons who are the sons-in-law of Pullu. Learned counsel has further placed before the Court dying declaration of the deceased which is annexed as Annexure 8 to the affidavit and has argued that the deceased stated that initially someone threw acid on him due to which he did not get burnt after which some persons poured petrol on him and then 5-6 persons burned him. It is further argued that in the dying declaration, the deceased does not name the applicant and other co-accused persons and as such the implication is false and with malafide intention. It is further argued that there is no eye witness to the actual burning of the deceased which is the actual incident as all the witnesses which have been interrogated are persons who came to the place of occurrence after the incident had taken place. It is argued that during investigation, the police has exonerated co-accused Pullu and has submitted charge sheet only against three persons namely Angad, Satish (present applicant) and Ram Pravesh which also goes to show the falsity of the present case. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal hsitory as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 02.09.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as the learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and has been assigned the role of calling the deceased on his phone then catching him hold and exhorting other accused persons to pour petrol and burn him, on which, the other co-accused persons poured petrol and burnt the deceased. The implication of the applicant is true and correct as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the First Information Report, the applicant is assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased and exhorting the other accused persons namely Ram Pravesh and Angad who have been assigned the specific role to pour petrol and setting the deceased on fire, it is a fit case for bail, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The role of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Ram Pravesh and Angad.
Let the applicant Satish Chandra, 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.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)