Allahabad High Court
Ankur Malik vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115602
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23379 of 2023
Applicant :- Ankur Malik
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 105 of 2020, under Section 302 of IPC, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report and his name came into light during investigation on the basis of extra judicial confession made before Bijendra Singh, the Gram Pradhan. It is further submitted that during course of trial statements of PW1/informant Sahendra (admittedly not an eye witness) and PW2 Bijendra Singh & PW3 Devendra Malik, who claimed themselves to be the witnesses of extra judicial confession recorded, they did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is further submitted that statements of PW4 Smt. Rajesh Devi (mother of the deceased) and PW5 Km. Mamta (real sister of the deceased) were also recorded during trial and they also not supported the prosecution story. It is further submitted that recovery of a country-made pistol shown on the pointing out of the applicant is false and planted. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2020 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that statement of Bharat Singh who is the witness of last seen is yet to be recorded before the trial court. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that informant and other family members of the deceased did not corroborate the prosecution version during their deposition before the trial court, without expressing any opinion on 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 Ankur Malik in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
AKT
