Allahabad High Court
Ramesh vs State Of U.P. on 22 January, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12798 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh,Rajeev Kumar Sharma,V.K. Baranwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Gyanendra Prasad Mahanth, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K. Baranwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA 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 applicant Ramesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 427 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, registered at P.S. Chikasi, District- Hamirpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the first information report lodged by Baburam a common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant of assaulting the two deceased Shiv Ratan and Prahlad with kulhari and lathi as a result of which they have died. It is argued that subsequently the statement of first informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that the co-accused Kalloo and Bhagirath caught hold of the deceased Prahlad and the present applicant assaulted with kulhari on the neck and further the co-accused Suklal and Lakhan caught hold of the deceased Shiv Ratan of which the co-accused Munna Lodhi assaulted on the neck with kulhari. It is argued that in the F.I.R. itself there is a reference that the first informant was being accompanied by Siddha Gopal and Deeraj who are also eye witnesses of the incident. Learned counsel has placed before the Court the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Siddha Gopal and Dheeraj, the copies of which are collectively annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit and has proceeded to argue while placing it that the said two eye witnesses have stated that Prahlad was caught hold by co-accused Bhagirath and Kalloo and was assaulted on his neck with kulhari by co-accused Munna Lodhi and further they have stated that Shiv Ratan was caught hold by Suklal and Lakhan Lodhi after which he was assaulted by the applicant with kulhari on his neck.
It is argued that sum and substance of the said statement is that the first informant has stated the applicant to have assaulted the deceased Prahlad whereas the other two eye witnesses being Dheeraj and Siddha Gopal have stated that the applicant assaulted Shiv Ratan. It is stated that the prosecution is not sure regarding participation of the applicant and the assault done by him and as such the version differs in so far it relates to the assault done by the applicant is concerned. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.6.2014 and as such has been in jail for about six years and six months till date.
Learned counsel has argued that the co-accused Kallu, Suk Lal and Bhagirath have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 12.5.2017, 31.7.2017 and 22.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 6435 of 2016 (Kallu Vs. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19782 of 2016 (Suk Lal Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45310 of 2017 (Bhagirath Vs. State of U.P.) respectively. The copies of the said orders have been produced before the Court which are taken on record.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument relating to the version given by the first informant and the two eye witnesses namely Dheeraj and Siddha Gopal relating to assault done by the applicant and the factum that the applicant is having no criminal history and has been in jail for the last about six years and six months.
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 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.
Let the applicant- Ramesh, 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.
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.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 22.1.2021/Naresh