Allahabad High Court
Kehari Singh Maurya vs State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149657 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32559 of 2023 Applicant :- Kehari Singh Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.S. Maurya,Shamsher Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Shamsher Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant, who has filed his vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Kehari Singh Maurya, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 79 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Sahawar, District Kasganj.
4. The First Information Report in the present matter was lodged on 13.3.2023 at 17:14 hours by Hariom naming the applicant- Kehari Singh Maurya and four other persons namely Nepal, Sahab Singh, Chakrapal, Brajesh and two unknown persons alleging therein that on 12.3.2023 around 7.00 p.m. his brother Deepu and his father Sriniwas along with Ramjilal were at their residence on which the accused persons came there on motorcycle and forcibly took his father Sriniwas and Ramjilal on the pretext of farming and panchayat and on the way they left Ramjilal but took his father. On 13.3.2023 dead body of his father was found in village-Banjara near canal. There has been a dispute with regards to land between his father and the said accused persons. The said accused persons have murdered his father.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the murder. It is further argued that common and general role of taking away of the deceased Sriniwas and Ramjilal has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant along with two unknown persons, after which on the way Ramjilal was left but the deceased was taken with them. It is argued that co-accused Sahab Singh has been exonerated by the police during investigation. It is further argued that there was dispute between co-accused Nepal Singh and the deceased with regards to land and the applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that implication of the applicant in the present case is on the basis of suspicion only. It is argued that the circumstances as alleged by the prosecution are incomplete. It is argued that co-accused Brijesh has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22760 of 2023, copy of said bail order is annexure no. 9 to the affidavit. Further it is argued that co-accused Rajpal Yadav has also been granted bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30920 of 2023, copy of said bail order has been placed before the Court which is taken on record. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.3.2023.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant and four other co-accused persons along with two unknown persons took the father of the first informant who was found dead having as many as 15 injuries on his body. It is argued that as such the bail application of the applicant be rejected.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the murder of the deceased. Common and general role has been assigned to all the named accused persons including the applicant and two unknown persons. One of the named accused persons Sahab Singh has been exonerated during investigation. Co-accused Brijesh and Rajpal Yadav have been granted bail.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence 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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicant- Kehari Singh Maurya, 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.
10. 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.
11. The bail application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 26.7.2023/Naresh