Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Rai And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. on 20 April, 2016
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5323 of 2016
Applicant :- Mukesh Rai And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pande,Amar Nath Singh,Rishi Kant Rai,Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Satendra Tirpathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mrs.Swati Agarwal
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Counter affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in case crime No.123 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 364, 452, 427 IPC and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, police station Suhwal, District Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicants is that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further contended that in the FIR 12 persons have been named along with four persons unknown. It is next contended that applicant nos. 4 and 5 have not been named in the FIR whereas applicant nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 have been named in the FIR. It is also contended that no specific role has been assigned to any of the individuals in the FIR and a general role has been assigned to all of them. It is further contended that the injuries are on the leg (thigh) i.e. on non-vital part. It is also contended that the prosecution story is highly improbable that 16 persons have assaulted but there are only two injuries that too on the non-vital part. It is lastly contended that the applicants is in jail since 24.1.16 and in case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Mrs. Swati Agrawal appearing for the complainant submits that the applicants are criminal minded persons and if they are enlarged on bail, there is every apprehension that they will tamper with the evidence. It is further contended that the complainant had filed various applications before the authorities concerned seeking protection as well as fair investigation but the police authorities have not taken action against the accused persons who are still absconding
However, as far as the question of other accused persons who are still absconding and fair investigation, the remedy lies elsewhere and the complainant is free to avail the said remedy.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
It is apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicants, namely, Mukesh Rai, Suresh Rai @ Kariya Rai, Manish Rai, Brajesh Kumar Yadav, Bharat Rai, Prince Rai and Dhananjay involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission, of which they are suspected.
5. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it would be open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
However keeping in view the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the complainant, liberty is given to the complainant, in case, any of the accused persons extends any threat to the complainant, the complainant is liberty to file a detail application before the trial court itself and the trial court shall consider the said application and disposed off the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two weeks' from the date of its filing. It is further provided that in case, there is any further apprehension from the side of the accused-applicants, the complainant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application before this court along with all relevant papers.
Order Date :- 20.4.2016
Anand
