Allahabad High Court
Raj Bahadur vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11438 of 2021
Applicant :- Raj Bahadur
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel,Alok Kumar Singh,Arvind Agrawal,Sanjay Shukla,Shashi Bhushan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anshuman Vidhu Chandra,Pankaj Rai,Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Supplementary Counter affidavit filed today by Sri Anshuman Vidhu Chandra, learned counsel for the informant which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 474 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Allahabad.
In brief, the prosecution case is that the informant Anuj Singh, son of the deceased, lodged the first information report on 16.09.2020 at 21:25 hrs. against three accused persons including the applicant alleging therein that the accused Satyendra Pratap Singh @ Pancham Singh and his family members were having enmity with the father of the informant due to election of Village Pradhan. It is further alleged that on 16.09.2020 at about 05:30 p.m. while his father was taking tea at Umesh Sweets House, Lala Bazar, Sahanso, the accused persons namely, Satyendra Pratap Singh @ Pancham Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Dharm Singh (applicant) came there on a motorcycle. Thereafter, the accused Raj Bahadur Singh and Dharam Singh (applicant) caught hold both the hands of his father and exhorted the co-accused Satyendra Pratap Singh @ Pancham Singh to kill him. Thereupon, the co-accused Satyendra Pratap Singh @ Pancham Singh opened fire on the temporal region of his father with the intention to kill him. His father fell down on the spot. Thereafter, the informant and his brother Anand Singh rushed towards the accused persons, but they fled from the place of occurrence after opening fire in the air.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is wholly innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case due village party bandi and political rivalry. There are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased and the role of firing on the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Satyendra Pratap Singh @ Pancham Singh. It is further submitted that co-accused Dharam Singh has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 31917 of 2021. The criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in para 16 of the affidavit and further submitted that the applicant is never been convicted in any criminal cases and except those cases mentioned in paragraph-16 of the affidavit applicant had no other criminal history. It is further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 05.10.2020, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Learned A.G.A. and by means of supplementary affidavit learned counsel for the informant have, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that parity is not the sole ground for bail and there are several judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court which clearly say that parity is not the sole criteria to grant bail and if th bail granted to similarly placed co-accused person without assigning any reason then on the basis of such bail orders merely on the ground of parity, the bail applicant should not be allowed and parity can only be persuasive in nature and cannot be binding, thus learned counsel for the informant rely on the judgement of this Court in case of Manish Vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24208 of 2022 and it is also submitted that on C.C.T.V footage which was taken from a shop nearby the incident and those C.C.T.V footage is send to Forensic Science Laboratory for authentication but till date C.C.T.V footage is not on record. Applicant is of criminal nature and if the applicant is released on bail then he shall misuse the liberty of bail, hence, applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant Raj Bahadur be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant 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. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence of the applicant, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure presence of the applicant proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. 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 the applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
PS
