Vikrant vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2352 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9147 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vikrant
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Yash Raj Verma,Sachin Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record.

Heard Shri Yash Raj Verma, 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 Vikrant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 750 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Bijnor vide order dated 28.1.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 29.10.2021 at 17.08 hours has been lodged by brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased against one Kamal Sharma and one unknown person stating therein that marriage of his sister-in-law, Priya Sharma was solemnized with Kamal Sharma on 1.12.2015. Kamal Sharma and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by father of the deceased in the marriage and due to this annoyance, they demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- and one vehicle. Deceased had given money many time on demand to father-in-law, mother-in-law and Kamal Sharma, in spite of this they committed marpeet with her, abused her and Kamal Sharma attempted to commit unnatural offence with her and forced her to make physical relation with his friends. In the month of January 2021, due to demand of dowry they ousted the deceased from her matrimonial house. The deceased has lodged a case bearing case crime No. 0696 of 2021 on 28.10.2021 in the police station Kotwali Chandpur. On 29.10.2021 in the morning at about 9.50 a.m., his sister-in-law, who was Assistant Professor in English Department in R.B.D. Degree College, left home for giving lectures. When she reached at the house of Dinesh Thapar, Kamal Sharma and his companions reached there and Kamal Sharma fired upon her due to which she fell down. Father-in-law of the first informant was going behind to drop sister-in-law to college. He identified Kamal Sharma. Irritated by his sister-in-law lodging a report against Kamal Sharma and his family members, Kamal Sharma along with his companions brutally murdered his sister-in-law at about 10.00 a.m. Dead body of the deceased was taken to District Hospital, Bijnor with the help of the police where she has been declared dead.

After lodging of the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 29.10.2021 at 17.55 hours at mortuary of District Hospital, Bijnor. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 29.10.2021 at 7.45 p.m. As per postmortem report, one entry fire arm wound 4 cm. below the right ear and one exit wound on the back of skull were found on the person of the deceased. Time of death was six hours prior to the incident. After recording the statements of the first informant Brijesh Kumar Kaushik, Ganesh Dutta Sharma (father of the deceased), eye witnesses Smt. Rukmani, Jyoti Sharma, Sangeeta Sharma, Pratiksha Gaur and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, Kamal Sharma and four other persons on 18.1.2022. The applicant was arrested on 16.11.2021.

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. Name of the applicant surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Raju Kashyap. It is further submitted that as per statement of eye witness Ganesh Dutta Sharma, main role of firing has been attributed to co-accused Raju Kashyap and the eye witness identified co-accused Raju Kashyap and Pawan Kumar @ Golu, who fled away from the spot by a motorcycle. Raju Kashyap and Pawan Kumar @ Golu were friends of Kamal Sharma. Both had come to the house of Ganesh Dutta Sharma earlier with Kamal Sharma. It is further submitted that except confessional statement of co-accused Raju Kashyap, who has been arrested on 31.10.2021, no other evidence for committing criminal conspiracy of murder has been collected against the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant was doing job in a factory along with co-accused Ravindra Kumar Sharma alias Gopal Sharma, who is cousin brother of Kamal Sharma. It is further submitted that co-accused Ravindra Kumar Sharma alias Gopal Sharma and Kapil @ Chotu, having similar role, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 8.2.2022 & 7.4.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2100 of 2022 and 12601 of 2022 respectively.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history. He was arrested by the police in a police encounter no injury case and has been implicated in two other cases. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Parveen @ Sonu Vs. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184.

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) The applicant is not named in the first information report;

(b) Name of the applicant surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Raju Kashyap and role of criminal conspiracy of murder has been assigned by co-accused Raju Kashyap;

(c) Main role of firing has been levelled against co-accused Raju Kashyap and Pawan Kumar @ Golu;

(d) One entry wound and one exit wound were found on the person of the deceased;

(e) Except confessional statement of co-accused Raju Kashyap, no evidence for committing criminal conspiracy of murder has been collected against the applicant;

(f) Co-accused Ravindra Kumar Sharma alias Gopal Sharma and Kapil @ Chotu, having similar role, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 8.2.2022 & 7.4.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2100 of 2022 and 12601 of 2022 respectively.

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, Vikrant 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.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour 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 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 :- 9.5.2022

T. Sinha