Allahabad High Court
Gaurav @ Monti vs State Of U.P. on 10 February, 2020
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5153 of 2020 Applicant :- Gaurav @ Monti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mishra,Vaibhav Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Sri Deepak Dubey, Advocate files his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Gaurav @ Monti seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 344 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Navabad, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that for an offence alleged to have been committed on 21.07.2018 at about 13:30 hrs and the First Information Report was lodged on the same day at about 21:57 hrs, wherein the distance between the place of occurrence and police station was 2 kms. away. Nine persons have been named in the First Information Report. In the present case, Jai Prakash Goshwami received injuries and died. It is stated that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. Subsequently, two co-accused persons namely Rohit @ Rohitas and Sagar Ram were arrested on 09.08.2018, wherein they have given their confessional statement and named the applicant as a person who also conspired in the present matter. He further stated that the said murder was committed by hiring them.
Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that there is no evidence coming forward for implicating the applicant under Section 120-B IPC as there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was a prior meeting of mind between the accused persons for committing the offence. He further argued that the applicant is said to have been involved nine other criminal cases, in which, in five cases, he has been granted bail, in one case for Arms Act, he has pleaded guilty, in one case at serial no. 1 which was reported to be against the applicant, he is the complainant. In Case Crime No, 300 of 2016 under Section 306 IPC, the applicant has been convicted only under Section 174-A IPC, for a period of one year and states that as such criminal history is explained properly. He further argued that the applicant is in jail since 14.04.2019.
Learned counsel for the first informant and the learned AGA oppose the prayer for bail and argued that bail of co-accused Raja has been rejected the bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 42916 of 2019. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Mauji Ram Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 17 wherein stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order granting bail to an accused after perusing the record and looking to the manner of the incident and the criminal antecedents. He has further relied upon a judgment of Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2016) 9 SCC 443 wherein relying upon para 8 argues that the said case was also a case under Section 120-B IPC, in which, a witness to an earlier case was eliminated before he was to finally testify in support of the charge and Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to set aside the order of the High Court granting bail to the accused therein. He further states that the applicant has a criminal history. No doubt the same has been explained in para 17 but the same shows that the applicant is involved in many cases.
Learned AGA on the other hand argued that looking to the criminal history and the evidence as collected by the Investigating Officer being the statement of two co-accused persons who have given their confessional statement and have also implicated the present applicant, the present bail deserves to be rejected.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record and further considering the judgments relied upon, in the present case the applicant is not named. The only evidence coming forward is the statement of two co-accused persons namely Rohit @ Rohitas and Sagar Ram implicating the applicant therein that though for an offence under Section 120-B. The judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the first informant no doubt sets aside the orders granting bail of two accused persons passed by the High Court, in one of the judgments, the murder was of a witness who in a previous matter was to testify in the Court for the charges against the accused persons and in the other case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had to observe that the order granting by the High Court, did not speak for the reasons for granting bail to the accused persons in the present matter.
Let the applicant Gaurav @ Monti, 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.
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.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 10.2.2020/M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)