Allahabad High Court
Pradeep vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON 2.1.2023
DELIVERED ON 9.1.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33273 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Rizwan Ahamad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harshit Gupta,Mohd Raghib Ali,Ramanand Gupta
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rizwan Ahamad, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pradeep, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.543 of 2021 (S.T. No. 1197 of 2022) under Sections 302,506,120-B,34, 201,473 IPC Police Station Civil Lines, District- Aligarh, during pendency of trial.
The brief facts of case are that on 27.12.2021 informant's brother Sandeep Kumar Gupta, who used to take took a contract of cement and transport, was going from his office to Green Park Society, Swarn Jayanti Nagar by vehicle NO.UP 82 AL 1000 along with driver, Ranveer Singh and nephew, Lavish Gupta and a friend, Anuj Gupta. Behind him another Scorpio No.UP 81 CD 0909 was coming in which driver, Sri Niwashi Mishra and Gunner Constable Sandeep Pal, were seated. The vehicle stopped at 8:15 p.m. before centre point turning near Gandhi Eye Hospital and driver was sent for taking pan masala. At that time a Blue Colour Baleno No.HR 26 DS 3332 which was going ahead stopped and two persons came out from the vehicle having arms in their hands and coming near the vehicle shot the brother of the informant, who were seen in the street light and head light of the vehicle by Lavish Gupta andAnuj Gupta sitting in the vehicle. They also tried to catch them but by firing and threatening they ran away.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been implicated in this case along with Praveen Bijauta and Jitendra @ Kanja.All of them are alleged to be hired shooters who caused murder of the deceased. Applicant's name has surfaced in the confessional statement of the aforesaid co-accused as driver of the vehicle wherein two shooters were travelling. The applicant is in jail since 11.3.2022. The applicant has criminal history of four cases apart from the present case, which has been explained in paragraph-32 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. .
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
This court finds that even if prosecution case is accepted, even then the role of applicant is only of driving of the vehicle in which the two shooters were travelling.No role of firing has been attributed to the applicant.
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.
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 :- 9.1.2023
Atul kr. sri.
