Allahabad High Court
Rinku vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20626 of 2020
Applicant :- Rinku
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh,Akash Tomar,Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia,Pankaj Misra,Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Narayan,Ulajhan Singh Bind
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 483 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other named co-accused persons is stated to have surrounded the deceased person near a Kolhu in the jungle of village Maanpur and is stated to have fired on the deceased person causing his death on 3.11.2019 at about 01:00 p.m. The informant, her sister-in-law (Jethani) Smt. Radha and father-in-law are stated to have seen the occurrence.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated at Bar that allegations leveled in the FIR are per se false as is evident from the fact that father-in-law of the informant Buddh Prakash and the brother-in-law of informant are the witnesses of inquest proceedings undertaken at Medical College Meerut. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that being the witnesses of inquest proceedings they were supposed to divulge the names of the assailants. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that there is no whisper of a word about applicant and any other persons being present at the scene of occurrence. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed much reliance on the memo of the dead body sent by the Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Hospital to the police station whereby it is mentioned that deceased person was brought dead on 3.11.2019 at 02:00 p.m. at the hospital. It is also mentioned in it that the deceased person had incurred the said injuries in the jungle of village Maanpur. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on GD No.28 at 03:10 p.m. of police station Bhawanpur, Meerut, whereby the said fact of memo of the deceased person is referred. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that this is a clear case of false implication as the FIR is instituted at the behest of wife of the deceased person who has stated that she is the eye-witness to the incident including her father-in-law whose name is Buddh Prakash and is Panch witness no.2 in the inquest proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that this completely falsifies the prosecution story. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that uncle of the applicant had instituted an FIR No.425 of 2019 who is the co-accused in the present FIR against the deceased and his family members. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that even the said altercation entered between the parties one day prior to the incident has not been reported anywhere. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.11.2019. The trial is going on and even the charge has not been framed. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. The fundamental rights of the applicant are at stake as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that institution of FIR No.425 of 2019 indicates the motive of commissioning of crime and it is the animosity which had impelled the applicant to commit the said crime. Learned counsel has stated that the motive is double edged sword that may be a reason for false implication, but it may also be a compelling reason for commissioning of crime. The present case is a broad day light incident and wife, father and sister-in-law of the deceased person are the eye-witnesses of the incident. Learned counsel has further stated that all the said witnesses have narrated and supported the story referred to in the FIR. The applicant is the main accused person as it is he, who had fired at the deceased person but he could not dispute the fact that father of the deceased person Buddh Prakash is Panch witness to the inquest proceedings.
8. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application and reiterated the arguments tendered by learned counsel for the informant.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has obsered as under:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and not even the charge has been framed in the present case and also the fact that father of the deceased person is witness to the inquest proceedings and the overall evidence on record, 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.
11. Let the applicant- Rinku involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v). 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.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or 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.
14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Vikas
