Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pratap @ Beenu vs State Of U.P. on 1 November, 2022
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on :- 18.10.2022
Delivered on :- 01.11.2022
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39799 of 2022
Applicant :- Vinay Pratap @ Beenu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Sandeep Kumar
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sharad Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. Counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the applicant from "Vijay Pratap @ Beenu" to "Vinay Pratap @ Beenu" in the memo of the bail application within the course of the day. Office is directed to correct the record accordingly.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vijay Pratap @ Beenu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah, during pendency of trial.
4. There is allegation of rioting, forming unlawful assembly and committing the offence of murder with common object. Factual allegations in the first information report are that on 14.03.2022, the deceased had gone to the field for cutting grass and dispute took place with son of Lakhan Singh. On 15.03.2022, on account of the aforesaid dispute which took place on 14.03.2022, the named accused persons has murdered Pradeep by firing on him. It was alleged that specific allegation was made against the co-accused, Devendra Pratap of causing the gunshot injury to the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The Investigating Officer recorded the supplementary statement of the first informant on 30.03.2022 wherein he developed the story that Raja, son of Surendra Pal, has caused gunshot injury to the deceased on 02.04.2022. The applicant and co-accused, Lokendra, were arrested on the information of the informer and recovery of one country-made pistol was shown from the applicant and his confessional statement was recorded by the police. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected evidence of independent witnesses to the same effect and got third supplementary statement of the informant recorded wherein he stated that the deceased was murdered by co-accused, Lokendra. It is further submitted that the police has exonerated the named accused and falsely implicated the applicant and the co-accused, Lokendra. Co-accused, Lokendra, has confessed to the murder of the deceased. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.04.2022. He had no prior criminal history and has been implicated in one case under Arms Act after implication in the present case. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Counsel for the informant, Sri Sharad Kumar, has submitted that the applicant was having affair with niece of the deceased, namely, Priya, which was being objected by the deceased and dispute also took place between them prior to the present incident. The applicant conspired with the co-accused person to commit the murder of the deceased. He has brought on record the confessional statement of co-accused, Lokendra, who has stated before the police that after the applicant has insulted by the deceased, he conspired with the co-accused and after arranging the arms the alleged offence was committed. He has submitted that the applicant was a main culprit in the incident. Hence, section 120-B IPC was added by the investigating officer. The applicant was having the motive of murder of the deceased.
7. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
8. This court after hearing the rival contentions, finds that initially in the FIR six persons were named as accused and only allegation was that during cutting of woods, the accused persons tried to crush the son of Lakhan Singh under the wheels of motorcycle. Co-accused, Lokendra, has confessed to the involvement of the applicant. The investigating officer has also recorded the statement of one eye-witness to implicate the applicant and other accused. Confessional statement of co-accused against the applicant is not relevant at this stage.
9. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant 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 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.
10. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 01.11.2022 Ruchi Agrahari