Allahabad High Court
Sachin vs State Of U.P. on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON 19.10.2022
DELIVERED ON 1.11.2022
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9820 of 2020
Applicant :- Sachin
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Dhaka
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akhilesh Chnadra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Vivek Dhaka, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sachin, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2018, under Sections 147,148,302,307,201,406,34/120 IPC Police Station Chhaprauli, District- Baghpat, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation in the First Information Report that husband of the informant was going with informant on foot. At about 7 P.M. her elder brother-in-law (Jeth), Pradeep and his two sons ,Sachin and Anukur alongwith Rajiv came in the car and fired on him from their country made pistols. Her husband ran inside the shop of Pankaj.All the four accused dragged him out and after throwing him in the car went away. Informant suspected that her husband has been murdered and his dead body has been taken away for causing its disappearance.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. The informant is sister-in-law (Devrani),of the mother of the applicant.The applicant was arrested on 13.6.2018 and one country made pistol was allegedly recovered from him.Earlier also he was implicated by the informant in a case crime no. 155 of 2018 under sections 448,147,323,504,506 I.P.C. and case crime no. 105 of 2018 under sections 147,148,149,376/511,307,323,504,506 I.P.C. alleging the offence of attempt to rape.Therefore, there is prior enmity between the parties and hence applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The informant in the First Information Report Report has assigned general role to all the accused persons.
Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out to the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer wherein role of causing gun shot injury to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused, Pradeep. The specific role has been assigned to him and not to the applicant. It is further submitted that no one has seen the incident and only because there was enmity of the informant with the applicant and other co-accused regarding property,they have been implicated. The dead body of the deceased was not recovered.The statements of the witnesses have been recorded by the trial court from P.W.1 to P.W.4,therefore there is no chance of tampering with the witnesses.
Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out to the statement of the P.W.1 where she has stated that she had given an application to the Superintendent of Police , Bagpat that her husband had suffered accident but later she denied the same. The applicant is in jail since 14.6.2018.He has criminal history of seven cases ,which have been explained in paragraphs-3 to 9 of supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has stated that there is motive regarding land dispute against the applicant. Offence has clearly been caused by the applicant and other accused persons.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. That 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;
5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
6. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 1.11.2022
Atul kr. sri.
