Allahabad High Court
Rishipal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 18 October, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202407
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44284 of 2023
Applicant :- Rishipal Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey,Pratima Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rishipal Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 332 of 2023, under Sections 302,201/34,120-B IPC Police Station Haldaur, District- Bijnor, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against the named accused, Golu @ Farman, of committing offence of murder of the deceased.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.c. of son of the deceased, Vipin Kumar, he has stated that deceased was his father and he has four sisters and Reena is his wife.His younger brother is Vikul and his wife is Roopal, who is working at Uttrakhand and Vikul is residing at Saudi Arabia.The deceased had willed all his property in the names of his sisters, Mamta alias Guddi and Antim and has diverted him from his property. Deceased had sold four Bighas of land for Rs. 18 lacs. He had willed four Bighas of land in the name of his wife, Reena.The wife of his younger brother, Roopal had disputed the same. Deceased had given Rs. 9 lacs to co-accused, Golu @ Farman on interest Rs. 6 lacs to Jonny and deceased spent Rs. 3 lacs in the marriage of daughter of his daughter, Guddi alias Mamta. Deceased had taken his nephew, Dixit, aged about 13 years to his house and he willed four Bighas of land in his name. The same was disputed by his brother-in-law, Rishipal and son of the deceased expressed apprehension that Golu @ Farman and Jonhy had murdered the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Deceased had willed four Bighas of land in favour of his son why would the applicant kill him is not explained. The applicant is in jail since 13.8.2023 and has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has 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; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the 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; 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.
Order Date :- 18.10.2023
Atul kr. sri.
