Allahabad High Court
Rampal vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40649 of 2020 Applicant :- Rampal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari as well as Sri G.P. Singh learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case No.412 of 2019 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
As per the complaint, which has been lodged by Chhatrapal Singh, his Tau Harvir Singh (deceased) was Principal in Sarvodanand Sanskrit Mahavidyalay Sadhu Ashram, Aligarh, which is a registered Society. On 29.11.2013 under a well thought out conspiracy, he was shot dead because he was going to retire within 3-4 months. The complainant's cousin brother Ramapl (applicant) had committed murder of the deceased in order to get employment under Dying-in-Harness Rule by eliminating the deceased and also in order to usurp the deceased's property. The application which was moved by the applicant to treat him a legal heir of the deceased, was rejected by the DIOS, Aligarh. Further, it is mentioned that a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs were borrowed by the co-accused Narayan Singh and Bacchu Singh from the deceased and a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs were borrowed by the co-accused Abhay Kumar Chauhan from the deceased. The applicant and other co-accused Netrapal, Kishanpal and Ranvir Singh in order to usurp the property/money of the deceased, had moved Court for obtaining succession certificate but they failed in their attempt and thereafter concealing these facts, another attempt was made by filing a case for obtaining succession certificate before Civil Judge(Senior Division), Aligarh and had obtained a certificate for Rs.33,14,829/- but when complainant came to know about it, he got the same set aside. Further, it is mentioned that the complainant tried to know about the murder of the deceased from Jeevan Singh and Om Prakash Singh but they did not reveal anything and thereafter he came to know through one Bhola and Brij Mohan that on 29.11.2013 the deceased was murdered in front of them but they had not revealed about this occurrence to the complainant because of fear. The deceased had been murdered on 10.02.2019 by the accused-applicant along with other co-accused named in the said complaint for usurping his property/money and also in order to get employment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. He had moved several applications before higher authority but no action was taken and then he had to move this complaint. After the complaint was made, the same was registered as Complaint Case.
In the said complaint case, the statements of the complainant and two witnesses i.e. Brij Mohan and Bhola have been recorded by the court below. Both of them had stated that on 29.11.2013, when they were going home at about 5.00 p.m. near bridge of Ramghat Road Kali, they had seen the accused-applicant present, who was telling the deceased that after his retirement, the entire money will have to be given to the complainant and then the deceased had started abusing them and then Ranvir Singh, Bachchu Singh, Abhay Kumar Chauhan and Kishanpal had caught hold of the deceased and Rampal (applicant), Netrapal and Narayan Singh had made fire upon the deceased by which he fell down. In post-mortem report, one entry and one exit wound is found to have been sustained by the deceased, which is cause of the death.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that regarding murder of the deceased, he had already lodged an FIR being case crime no. 459 of 2013 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 IPC, P.S. Harduaganj, District Aligarh, copy of which is annexed at pages 39-41 of the paper book. and after investigation in this case, charge-sheet has been submitted. The present complainant in collusion with the said accused in order to put pressure upon him to withdraw the case, has lodged this complaint after a long gap of about six years, therefore the applicant should be allowed bail. The applicant has criminal history of three cases which has been explained in paragraph no.30 of the affidavit, in which he is on bail. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 07.09.2020. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer and when the court enquired about the delay caused in lodging the FIR/complaint, he could not give any satisfactory reply.
In the light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the fact of the case and taking into consideration the nature of offence, quantum of punishment, there are no chances of accused fleeing from justice and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Rampal involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 AU