Mukesh @ Mukul vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1996 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27048 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Mukesh @ Mukul
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh,Navin Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Onkar Nath
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

This is a second bail application of the accused- Mukesh @ Mukul. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33848 of 2013 has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2014 without considering the merits of the case and observed that the trial is near to completion.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Mukesh @ Mukul under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2010 (S.T. No. 497 of 2010) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452, 34, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Etah during pendency of the trial.

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 08.04.2010 has been lodged by son of the deceased against the applicant and another 3 named co-accused persons stating therein that on 08.04.2010 at about 08:00 A.M. one Charan Singh throw out the garbage in the drainage of the first informant, first informant and his father Bhagwan Singh opposed, hence, the applicant and three other named accused persons, who were carrying a Pistol (Tamancha) and a danda, started abusing them and committed marpit and opened fire with the intention of killing the first informant and his father, after sustaining firearm injury his father was seriously injured and was brought to the government hospital with the help of villagers, where the doctor declared him dead. Ram Charan and Ram Babu have seen the alleged incident.

After lodging the first information report at 09:20 hours on 08.04.2020, medical examination of the injured Shailesh Kumar (first informant) and Smt. Meena were conducted on 08.04.2010 and 10.04.2010 respectively. After conducting the inquest proceedings of the deceased, postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 08.04.2010 at 01:20 P.M. As per postmortem report, one firearm entry wound and one exit wound were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this two lacerated wound were found on the right side of head and neck. After recording the statement of the injured and prosecution witnesses, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and three other named co-accused persons. The applicant was arrested on 12.04.2010.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive as well as village party bandi. It is further submitted that applicant is facing trial from the year 2010 and since then he is incarceration in judicial custody. It is further submitted that more than 12 years have passed but the trial is not concluded over yet. It is next contended that general role of causing firearm injury have been assigned against the applicant and other co-accused persons. No specific role or involvement has been leveled against the applicant that the applicant is the author of the firearm injury.

It is further submitted that cross F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 2449 of 2010, under Sections 147, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. has been lodged by the applicant's side against the first informant and other persons. It is further submitted that one co-accused Ranvir Singh sustained injuries of two lacerated wound size 2.5 cm x .5 cm bone deep on the right side of the head and little finger and one abrasion back of right elbow. Other 3 injuries were also found on the body of co-accused Ranvir Singh, his medical examination was conducted on 08.04.2010 at 09:30 in the presence of the police. The prosecution has not explained the injuries of the co-accused Ranvir Singh. It is further argued that there is no evidence as to who is the author of the firearm injury to the deceased.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and 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 F.I.R. 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) More than 12 years have passed but the trial is not concluded over yet;

(b) General role of causing firearm injury have been assigned against the applicant and other co-accused persons;

(c) No specific role or involvement has been leveled against the applicant that the applicant is the author of the firearm injury;

(d) Cross F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged by the applicant's side against the first informant;

(e) The prosecution has not explained the injuries of the co-accused Ranvir Singh;

(f) There is no evidence as to who is the author of the firearm injury to the deceased.

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.

The Supreme Court in case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 O SCC 220 would reveal that one of the directions issued by the Apex Court, which is relevant to this case, is as follows:-

"The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him.

We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be troubled with such matters."

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, Mukesh @ Mukul 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.

(vii) The applicant will report to the local police station on the first Monday of every month.

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.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

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 along-with 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 :- 5.5.2022

Ishan