Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2020
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20285 of 2020 Applicant :- Kamlesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashwini Prakash Tripathi, learned A.G.A. 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 applicants, Kamlesh and Naresh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 85 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Husainganj, District Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the version as in the FIR is that a dead body of an unknown female aged about 30 years is lying in the canal which was seen by the first informant on 11.05.2020 at about 10.00 a.m. The said information was subsequently registered as FIR on 13.05.2020 against unknown person. Prior to the registration of the FIR the inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted as an unknown female. It is further argued that subsequently, on 12.05.2020 a police informer informed the Investigating Officer that there is a discussion in the village that the dead body which was recovered is of Poonam the daughter of Ramesh of village Deewan Ka Purva. The said information was recorded in the CD on 12.05.2020, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure- 4 to the affidavit. Subsequently, Ramesh gave an application to the police, the same is annexed as Annexure- 5 to the affidavit mentioning therein that his daughter, Poonam was unwell and some medicine was given by one Ram Babu to her which was consumed by her after which her condition deteriorated and later on, she died. Subsequently, he with his wife went to Ram Babu who told them that he has not given any medicine and further instructed them the manner of cremation on which they took the dead body in a gunny bag and immersed it in Ramganga Nahar.
Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure- 10 of the affidavit which is the statement of Ramesh the father of the deceased who was made as an accused and it is argued that he has given a confession to the police that he has murdered his daughter. It is further argued that subsequently, on 17.05.2020 one Ramu and Vijendra were interrogated who have stated that on 08.05.2020 at about 12:40 a.m. they saw the applicants, Vijay Shanker, Ramesh and Akhilesh going somewhere together. The said statements are annexed as Annexure- 11 to the affidavit. It is argued that the police informer informed the police that the murder of Poonam has been committed by her mother, Smt. Shivkali and brother, Akhilesh by strangulating her which was given assistance by her father, Ramesh and the applicants along with Vijay Shanker were called and they had assisted in the disposal of the dead body. The said parcha is Annexure- 12 to the affidavit. It is further argued that later on, on 21.05.2020 Ajay Bhan Singh, Chhotey Lal and Ajay Kumar were interrogated by the Investigating Officer and their statements were recorded which are Annexure- 13 to the affidavit in which they have stated that on the fateful night they saw Akhilesh taking Poonam on his bicycle who was caught by Vijay Shanker and Naresh, Ramesh and Kamlesh were also going with them. It is thus argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence without any eye-witness account. The implication of the applicant is false and without any substantive evidence. It is further argued that the police has shown a recovery of a cloth allegedly used to murder the deceased on the pointing out of co-accused, Akhilesh. The said recovery memo is annexed as Annexure- 15 to the affidavit. It is argued that the applicants have no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. They have been falsely implicated in the matter.
It has been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required. It has also been pointed out that the accused are not having any criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and they are in jail since 21.05.2020 and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and hence, the applicants may be released on bail during pendency of trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicants, Kamlesh and Naresh, 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 applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them 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 applicants 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 :- 6.8.2020 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal, J.)