Allahabad High Court
Suraj vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19737 of 2019
Applicant :- Suraj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and Sri Parmeshwar Yadav, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, are 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 applicant is grand son of the deceased. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by Smt. Prabhawati Devi, daughter-in-law of deceased against 3 named persons including the applicant and one unknown. In FIR it has been mentioned that due to dispute of partition of property the applicant and other co-accused have committed the murder of the deceased. Informant Smt. Prabhawati Devi is not eye witness of the alleged incident. In the statements of Heera Yadav (brother of the deceased) and Rajesh Yadav (nephew of the deceased) it has come that in the night of 20.11.2018 at about 10:00 P.M. they have seen the applicant and other co-accused running in puzzled condition from the place of occurrence. The above witnesses Heera Yadav and Rajesh Yadav are not the eye witnesses of the alleged incident. In their statements they have not shown any weapon in the hands of applicant and other co-accused. It has further been submitted that in the confessional statement of co-accused Smt. Sanju it has come that applicant caused injury to the deceased on his head with Lathi but no injury of blunt object has been found on the head of the deceased. It has further been submitted that recovery of Danda has been shown on the pointing out of applicant. In fact, the applicant had not got recovered any Lathi. False recovery has been planted against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has not committed the alleged offence. This is night incident. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dispute of property. It has further been submitted that co-accused Smt. Sanju has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 21.2.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7205 of 2019, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 28.11.2018.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased had executed a sale deed in favour of his son Suresh due to which the applicant and other co-accused have committed the murder of the deceased. The applicant is grand son of the deceased. The applicant and other co-accused have been seen by two witnesses namely Heera Yadav and Rajesh Yadav running in a puzzled condition and a Danda used in the commission of the murder of the deceased has also been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Due to dispute of property the applicant and other co-accused have committed the murder of the deceased, 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 Suraj involved in Case Crime No. 258 of 2018, under section 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Thoothibari, District Maharajganj 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 :- 10.5.2019
Masarrat
