Allahabad High Court
Vikki Alias Vikas vs State Of U.P. on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31357 of 2020
Applicant :- Vikki Alias Vikas
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Praksah,Rajeev Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel
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 Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravindra Tiwari holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.926 of 2019, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused persons, namely, Prashant and Monu Pal who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.3.2020 & 8.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11451 of 2020 and 22053 of 2020, respectively. Learned counsel has stated that there was criminal history of twelve cases assigned to co-accused Monu Pal and applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except a case under Section 25 of Arms Act fastened on him at the time of his arrest in the present case. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has stated that in the bail order of co-accused Monu Pal, the Court has opined that "it is made clear that case of the present applicant is distinguished from the case of other co-accused, Vikki who has been assigned main role". Although, he could not put any evidence on record to suggest that case of the present applicant is at a different footing to other two co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the statements of the brother of the deceased person Atul and informant who has been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 Akash, the eye-witness, whereby they have categorically allayed similar allegations against all the three assailants. Learned counsel has stated that the said averment made in the bail order of co-accused Monu Pal cannot be relied at this point of time.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed 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."
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the factum of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 examined in court and also the statement of star witness Atul, who has since expired, 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 on the ground of parity to the other two co-accused persons. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Vikki Alias Vikas 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 :- 9.2.2023
Vikas
