Allahabad High Court
Sukh Ram vs State Of U.P. on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 33
Case :- BAIL No. - 2250 of 2020
Applicant :- Sukh Ram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
The instant application has been filed for bail of Sukh Ram, involved in Case Crime No.265 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 394 IPC., Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that as per FIR, the deceased (Raj Kumar) was driver (employee) of informant Maithely Sharan Gupta and on 07.07.2019, he was carrying cement on truck bearing No.32 B.N. 5514 from Gauriganj A.C.C. cement factory to Lucknow. Learned counsel further submits that when the deceased did not arrive at his destination, a missing report (FIR) was lodged against the deceased by the informant (owner) after two days on 09.07.2019 under Section 406 IPC for misappropriation of cement. Learned counsel further submits that during investigation, the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 13.07.2019 and on 15.07.2019, an information was given by Sandeep, son of deceased, that the applicant and three other persons, who were sitting with the deceased as passenger on 07.07.2019, had beaten the deceased, tried to loot the vehicle and they had caused the death of the deceased by strangulation with Gamchcha and threw the dead body into the Sharda canal.Learned counsel further submits that as per information given by Sandeep, applicant and other co-accused had also delivered 270 sacks cement to one Babu Pasi, R/o Bachchrawa, District Raibareli and 100 sacks of cement to Ram Milan, R/o Bhawakhera, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. Learned counsel further submits that no source of information of said occurrence has been mention by said Sandeep Kumar either in the detailed information given by him or in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that delay caused in giving such information by said Sandeep, has also not been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that according to prosecution story at the time of arrest of the applicant, one country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the applicant but according to prosecution, the death of the deceased was caused by strangulation. Learned counsel further submits that no sacks of stolen cement was recovered from the possession of the applicant at the time of recovery. He further submits that three false cases were also registered against the applicant at the time of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is a law abiding person, languishing in jail since 16.07.2019. Learned counsel further submits that if the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned AGA further submits that in view of gravity of offence, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, material available on record regarding role of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed.
The application for bail is allowed.
Let the applicant Sukh Ram involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 :-
i. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii. The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
iv. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
v. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC (iv) argument / judgment.
vi. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.3.2021
P.s.
