Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Seth vs The State Of U.P. on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37737 of 2020
Applicant :- Sandeep Seth
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Mohd Raghib Ali,Ratnesh Mishra,Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bansh Narain Pathak
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and 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.1612 of 2019, under Sections 394, 302, 34, 411, 114 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the father of the informant, who happens to be jeweller, is stated to have gone to his shop on 24.12.2019 at about 09:00 a.m. but he did not return by 08:00 p.m. as such at about 08:15 p.m. the informant is stated to have reached the shop and found the shutter closed but he observed that the side gate was opened as such he entered the shop through that gate and found blood-stain there and further entering it he found that his father was tied to ropes and had been slaughtered and the shop was found robbed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed as it has been lodged next day at about 10:27 a.m. and the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The recovery has been planted on him. The co-accused person Rajesh Seth happens to be maternal uncle of the applicant and resident of Kerakat, Jaunpur and the location of the applicant was found at Kerakat at the time of offence i.e. in the evening at about 04:47 hours. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has been made an accused on the basis of his confession only which is not admissible under Section 26 of Evidence Act. Learned counsel has stated that later on the applicant was asked by his maternal aunt to enquire about the whereabouts of co-accused persons including Rajesh Seth then only the applicant had reached Varanasi and the pictures observed in the CCTV footage are of after the incident. Learned counsel has stated that no prosecution witnesses have been examined to date. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.12.2019.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the recovery is just three days after the offence and the said recovery of 05.021 kg. silver ornaments and 13.03 grams of golden ornaments cannot be planted by anybody. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the counsel of the applicant has failed to indicate as to what animosity the police had with them. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that CCTV footage indicates that applicant was present outside the shop and was standing guard and other co-accused person entered the shop and he was very much part and parcel of the crime. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that postmortem report corroborates the time of death as indicated by the FIR. The circumstances taken as a whole indicate towards the applicant also being involved in the said offence.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record and taking into consideration the said averments and CCTV footage of the applicant at the place of occurrence including heavy recovery from the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. 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.
10. 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.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
Vikas
