Allahabad High Court
Pankaj And Another vs State Of U.P. on 2 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33486 of 2022 Applicant :- Pankaj And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,M.P.S. Chauhan,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, Advocate assisted by Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The instant second application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicants, namely, Pankaj and Chhotu with the prayer to enlarge them on bail in F.I.R./ Case Crime No.199 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 304, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gabhana, District Aligarh, during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the accused/applicants are innocent who have been falsely implicated in this case as the first information report has been lodged against them on the basis of false and fabricated facts. He has also submitted that in fact, the accused/ applicants were not present on the spot on the alleged date of occurrence.
His further submission is that the new ground in this case, necessitating moving of instant second application for bail, is that the first informant, Anita Devi, who is the mother of the deceased and Dhananjay Singh, who is the father of the deceased, were examined after rejection of first bail application of the accused/ applicants vide order dated 23.02.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3666 of 2022 (Pankaj and another vs. State of U.P.). They have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.
His next submission is that the accused/ applicants are languishing in jail since 02.08.2021 who have no previous criminal history.
His further submission is that in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicants shall not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Lokendra and Kallu @ Ranveer have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49798 of 2021 (Lokendra vs. State of U.P.) and vide order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47062 of 2021 (Kallu @ Ranveer vs. State of U.P.) respectively.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the first application for bail of the accused/ applicants was rightly rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3666 of 2022 (Pankaj and another vs. State of U.P.) on the ground that a country made firearm was recovered on the pointing out of the present accused/ applicants. However, he has been very fair in admitting the fact that post rejection of first bail application of the accused/ applicants vide order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3666 of 2022 (Pankaj and another vs. State of U.P.), two witnesses of fact, namely, Anita Devi, who is the first informant and mother of the deceased and Dhananjay Singh, who is the father of the deceased, were examined who have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that though the named first information report came to be lodged against accused persons. However, the co-accused persons, namely, Lokendra and Kallu @ Ranveer have already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49798 of 2021 (Lokendra vs. State of U.P.) and vide order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47062 of 2021 (Kallu @ Ranveer vs. State of U.P.) respectively. The first application for bail of the accused/ applicants was rejected vide order dated 23.02.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3666 of 2022 (Pankaj and another vs. State of U.P.). However, post rejection of the first bail, two witnesses of fact, namely, Anita Devi, who is the first informant and mother of the deceased and Dhananjay Singh, who is the father of the deceased, were examined who have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. They have stated that they did not see the present accused/ applicants on the spot and they did not know as to who gave the fatal blow to the deceased. The accused/ applicants are languishing in jail since 02.08.2021 who have no previous criminal history.
Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the nature of offence, evidence regarding the complicity of applicants and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The bail application is, thus, allowed.
Let the applicants, namely, Pankaj and Chhotu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial;
2. The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment;
3. The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail;
4. The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
5. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court;
6. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them, in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 2.1.2023/ cks/-