Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 5 May, 2015
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? A.F.R.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14750 of 2015
Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the informant.
Perused the record.
Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that after the alleged kidnapping of the first informant's son, it appears from the record that a series of applications were moved by the first informant which were addressed to different higher authorities including the Circle Officer, S.S.P., I.G., D.I.G. and District Magistrate etc. But in none of such applications, either the applicant has been named nor has any suspicion been shown against him. Counsel has drawn the attention of the court to various such previous applications which have been annexed along with the bail application. Further submission is that the incident is said to have taken place on 27.5.2010 but for the first time on 4.11.2010 in an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. the name of the applicant surfaced as an accused. Submission is that there is inordinate delay on the part of the first informant in disclosing the complicity of accused in the crime or to disclose even a suspicion on him and this procrastination speaks volumes about the falsity of the allegation made against the applicant accused. Further submission is that this prolonged non-disclosure detracts very substantially from the testimonial worth of first informant and also demonstratively shows the hollowness of the claim made by the first informant and other witnesses that they had witnessed the allegedly kidnapped victim for the last time along with the applicant or that the applicant was ever seen carrying the victim Nazeem along with him. Even the so called witnesses other than the first informant, too could not offer any credible explanation for their prolonged reticence in this regard and who have introduced themselves as witnesses of the last seen after a yawning gap of several months after the disappearance of the missing kidnapee. The contention is that there is no earthly explanation for the aforesaid prolix non-disclosure by witnesses which sufficiently proves that the allegations against applicant are all false and fabricated and are the result of malice, concert and deliberation. The applicant is in jail since 12.2.2015. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial
Learned A.G.A. and Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that as the accused persons belong to the police department they had not allowed a fair investigation to take place. The first informant had to approach the High Court a number of times in that regard and it was only after the pressure of the High Court which was exerted that some progress could be made in the investigation. It was also submitted that the alleged kidnapped person has not yet been recovered. But neither A.G.A. nor Shri Mishra could furnish any convincing explanation for the inordinately late disclosure of this applicant's complicity in the crime.
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, the unexplained belated disclosure by witnesses about the complicity of the applicants in the crime, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial 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-Ashutosh Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.709 of 2010, u/s 166, 167, 364, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Sardhana, District-Meerut be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 5.5.2015
Rkb
