Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Gond vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17501 of 2019
Applicant :- Pradeep Gond
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Srivastava,Virendra Nath Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged on 5.2.2018 after one month and five days of the alleged incident. In FIR it has been mentioned that on 25.12.2017 at about 7:00 p.m. Sandeep Gour son of Sudarshan Gour took away the deceased. On the next day i.e. 26.12.2017 at about 10:00 a.m. one Bindu reached at the house of informant and told that Sudarshan Gour is calling to him. It has further been informed that his son has become ill and is admitted in Baluaghat hospital. When the informant reached at Baluaghat where he was informed that his son is in Jalhupur police chauki where he found his son dead. Applicant and co-accused Sandeep Gour and Jameel were also present there. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that information with regard to death of deceased was given by the applicant to the police on 26.12.2017. On the basis of information of applicant inquest and postmortem of the deceased was conducted. According to postmortem report abrasion 3 x 2 cm on right face was found to the deceased and cause of death of the deceased could not ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved. In viscera report Aluminium Phosphate poison has been found to the deceased but it is not specified as to who had administered poison to the deceased. It has further been submitted that applicant had not administered poison to the deceased. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 26.12.2018.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per FIR brother of applicant namely Sandeep Gour has taken away the deceased. The informant was informed in the morning and the dead body of the deceased was found in Jalhupur police chauki where the applicant and other co-accused Sandeep Gour and Jameel were also present. The deceased died while he was in the company of applicant and other co-accused, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Pradeep Gond involved in Case Crime No. 49 of 2018, under section 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 3.5.2019
Masarrat
