Neetu @ Umesh vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 415 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4099 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Neetu @ Umesh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Neetu @ Umesh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 587 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 272, 273, 304, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 60(A) Excise Act, registered at Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Aligarh vide order dated 4.1.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 1.6.2021 has been lodged by brother of the deceased against Lakshmi Devi @ Mami stating that on 24.5.2021 at 8.00 p.m. health of his brother suddenly deteriorated. When he asked his brother, he told the first informant that he purchased illicit/noxious liquor from Lakshmi Devi, who made illicit/noxious liquor after purchasing it from Government licence holders. Other person of his colony namely, Mahendra Singh also told his nephew about the purchase of illicit liquor from co-accused Lakshmi Devi. The brother of the first informant and Mahendra Singh have died after taking illicit/noxious liquor on 30.5.2021 in the night.

After lodging of the first information report, inquest of the deceased Sanjay Sharma was conducted on 30.5.2021 at 20.02 hours and inquest of the deceased Mahendra Singh was conducted on 31.5.2021 at 12.40 p.m. Postmortem of the deceased Sanjay Sharma was conducted on 31.5.2021 at 2.30 a.m. and postmortem of the deceased Mahendra Singh was conducted on 31.5.2021 at 1.50 a.m. During the course of investigation raid was conducted and 98 pouches of liquor from the bed of the house of the co-accused Lakshmi Devi were recovered. After recording the other statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been submitted on 14.7.2021 against co-accused Lakashmi Devi, Manoj @ Mannu, Amit, Ram Niwas, Mukesh, Sharad Pratap Singh, Pawan Kumar, Ravindra Pathak, Vickky and the present applicant. The applicant was arrested on 24.6.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is not named in the first information report. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Name of the applicant surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Ram Niwas @ Raj. Present first information report has been lodged against sole co-accused Lakshmi Devi. In her confessional statement, co-accused Lakshmi Devi has implicated co-accused Manoj @ Mannu. After that Amit Garg and Ram Niwas were implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after the arrest of the applicant in the present case, he has been implicated in seven other similar cases on the basis of his confessional statement. It is further submitted that there is no other evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement of co-accused Ram Niwas @ Raj. It is further submitted that co-accused Ravindra Pathak has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.3.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1482 of 2022.

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) Name of the applicant surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Ram Niwas.

(b) Except confessional statement of the co-accused Ram Niwas, there is no other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant;

(c) No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant;

(d) The applicant has no previous criminal history;

(e) Co-accused Ravindra Pathak has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.3.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1482 of 2022.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Neetu @ Umesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 4.4.2022

T. Sinha