Allahabad High Court
Sachin vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22694 of 2019
Applicant :- Sachin
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged against unknown by Rajesh Sharma son of the deceased on 30.9.2018 mentioning therein that the deceased Adesh had gone for labour after taking E-Rickshaw on rent. Thereafter, the informant Rajesh Sharma in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that his son Prateek Sharma had seen the applicant, co-accused Subhash and Vinod going on E-Rickshaw of the deceased on 28.9.2018 at about 11.00 AM. It has further been submitted that if Prateek Sharma had seen the applicant going on E-Rickshaw then he may disclose this fact to the informant at the time of lodging the FIR but he has not disclosed this fact to the informant. It has further been submitted that recovery of two batteries of alleged E-Rickshaw has been shown from the possession of applicant and recovery of two batteries has been shown from the possession of co-accused Vinod. It has further been submitted that false recovery has been planted against the applicant. Except the evidence of last seen there there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. The co-accused Vinod having identical role has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 3.5.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18788 of 2019, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 1.10.2018.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid that co-accused Vinod having identical role has already been released on 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 Sachin involved in Case Crime No. 1382 of 2018, under section 363, 302, 392, 201, 411 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr 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 :- 30.5.2019
Masarrat
