Allahabad High Court
Vikrant vs State Of U.P. on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16268 of 2023
Applicant :- Vikrant
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Singh Tomar,Adarsh Bhushan,Parvish Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for applicant, Sri J.P. Singh and Sri Virendra Singh Khokhar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.116 of 2022, under Sections 342, 364, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the informant had entered into money transactions with the applicant as such had taken Rs.2 lakhs from the applicant. The deceased person is stated to have given him a cheque of Rs.2 lakhs which was bounced as such applicant is stated to have demanded an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- from him. Over the said dispute, the applicant is stated to have called the informant, her son and grandson to Makhmulpur on 5.4.2022 at about 05:00-06:00 p.m. The applicant along with co-accused persons Arjun, Monu, Virendra Singh, Mudresh, Shivani and others had taken them captive as such somehow the informant got herself released from their clutches on the pretext that she shall arrange some money for them. After her release, she is stated to have called the police by dialing 112 number and informed them about the said incident. The police had reached the said village Makhmulpur on the said information and as such seeing them the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have abducted the son Bhupendra and grandson Arjun of the informant in their car. At about 06:30 p.m., the dead bodies of the two were found in the jungle of village Salpha. The FIR was instituted at the police station in the night on 7.4.2022 at about 01:01 a.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general allegations against all the accused persons. The co-accused person Virendra has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order 20.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38505 of 2022. The applicant is also entitled for bail. The only disparity alleged by the prosecution is of recovery at the pointing of the applicant. The recovery has been planted on him. Learned counsel has stated that the said recovery has been foisted falsely on him. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 8.4.2022.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is a police personnel and at his pointing out his service pistol of 9 mm has been recovered along with cartridges and further a pistol of .32 bore along with empty cartridges have been recovered at his pointing out. There is a recovery of a wallet and two mobile phones of the deceased person at the pointing out of the applicant from his house. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant had dialed at 112 number which is entered and filed with the bail application as Annexure no.6, whereby she has stated that Vikrant Malik (applicant) and Arjun Malik had kidnapped her son and grandson. Learned counsel has further stated that from the said Honda City car two empty bullets were also recovered, one from the left side of the driver and one beneath the gear lever of the car which corroborates the prosecution story. The said car which was used in the said crime has been recovered by the police. There is nothing on record to suggest that police has any animosity with the applicant that too him being their brother employee.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said time of difference in the said alleged release of the informant and the information to the police is barely 26 minutes and the distance is about 60 kilometers which is next to impossible to cover. Learned counsel has stated that the said information has been sent from Meerut while the incident falls within the jurisdiction of district Shamli.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival contentions and the fact that the recovery of a pistol of .32 bore and his own pistol has been made at the pointing out of the applicant including a wallet and two mobile phones of the deceased person and also the fact that the said information sent to the police station indicates the name of the applicant as also the case of the applicant stands distinguished to co-accused Virendra, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Vikas
