Allahabad High Court
Totaram vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON 10.1.2023
DELIVERED ON 17.1.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49506 of 2022
Applicant :- Totaram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Mishra,Kartikey Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga,Sandeep Kumar
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Kartikey Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amit Daga and Shri Sandeep Kumar,learned counsel for the informant and Shri Gyan Narayan Kanojia, learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Totaram, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 129 of 2022, under Sections 147,148,149,302,506,120-B IPC Police Station Kosikalan, District- Mathura, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against five named and some unknown accused in the First Information Report that father of the informant had gone to do the "Parikarma of Sanidev temple" where indiscriminate firing was made by the accused persons on him as a result of which he died..The incident took place on 29.1.2022 and First Information Report was lodged on 30.1.2022. In the postmortem report of the deceased doctor found gun shot wounds over the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first informant has admitted in his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. that he des not knows who has committed murder of his father. He implicated Dhan Singh and Amol as the persons who know about the murder of his father.In the second statement of first informant he stated that Durga alias Durgesh son of Tota Ram, Tota Ram son of Padma, Rajaram, Dan Singh and Nanad Ram were also there alongwith two accused named earlier namely, Amol and Dhani Singh. The investigating officer recorded the statement of alleged eyewitness Lakhan, Hari Mohan and Chetram, who have stated that they have not seen the incident. Charge sheet has already been submitted by the police. Applicant is aged about 76 years and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has criminal history of three cases ,which has been explained in paragraph 14 of the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. No recovery has been made from him at different stages different accused have been implicated. The charge sheet has already been submitted .There is no possibility of tampering with the witnesses. The applicant is in jail since 12.3.2022 and has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have 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 noted above,finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Atul kr. sri.
