Allahabad High Court
Mukesh vs State Of U.P. on 7 December, 2017
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39578 of 2017
Applicant :- Mukesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gavendra Pal Singh,Ambuj Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhanu Prakash Verma
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is present and has stated that he had filed parcha on the previous date but his name is not shown in the cause list today.
Office is directed to ensure that his name shall be shown in the next cause list positively.
Counter affidavit has been filed by Shri Bhanu Prakash Varma, learned counsel for the opposite party, the same is taken on record.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 92 of 1998, under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Gaunda, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
Prosecution's case as per F.I.R. is that on 5.4.1998 in the night, son of first informant Shri Harimohan aged about 21 years had gone to sleep on his tube-well but when the next day in the morning first informant went there, he did not find his son. On being enquired, Jai Prakash and Satyapal apprised him that they had seen his son going with Dharmveer and Mukesh on a motor-cycle. Since thereafter, despite lot of search having been made his whereabouts could not be known. It was possible that he might have been killed. It is further recorded that his son was mentally retarded.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, in this case Final Reort was filed on 13.4.1998. In the statement given to police both the above mentioned witnesses namely Jai Prakash and Satyapal have stated that their names were given as a witness because of being relative of complainant and both of them have also stated that because there was a case going on between the complainant and the accused wherein Harimohan was not appearing in court, a false report of kidnapping was lodged against him. It is further stated that police had submitted a report dated 30.6.1995 that Harimohan had turned a Sadhu. The accused is lying in jail since 28.4.2017. He has been falsely implicated because a Case Crime No. 36 of 1995 was lodged against the first informant under Sections 323, 324, 325 IPC, wherein, the first informant and his family members have been convicted by the lower court, thereafter, conviction was upheld by the High Court but some remission was granted in punishment. Therefore, a counter-blast this F.I.R. was lodged against him.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has stated that police was siding with the accused because of which wrong statements had been recorded of the witnesses. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., one witness Jai Prakash has stated that he had seen the son of the first informant being taken away on a motor-cycle by the present accused along with one another. Therefore, there is evidence of last seen, hence, bail application should be rejected.
In view of above arguments without expressing any opinion on merits of the case looking to the fact that accused is in jail since 28.4.2017 and that the only evidence which has come against him is that of last seen, this is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Mukesh involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.75,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 7.12.2017
A.P. Pandey
