Allahabad High Court
Gajraj vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90362
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19562 of 2024
Applicant :- Gajraj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.03 of 2024, under Sections 34, 120-B, 147, 307, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Gajraula, District- Amroha, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution case, the brother of the informant is stated to have been shot by some unknown person on 1.1.2024 at about 08:00 a.m. On getting the said information, the informant is stated to have rushed to the said place and the injured person was taken to CHC, Gajraula from where he was referred to higher centre and was taken to Nutema Hospital, Meerut and en-route to the said hospital from Gajraula, the injured person is stated to have told the informant that assailants were Sanjeev, Mahavir, Aman, Dipanshu and Ajay Gopal.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up later on during the statement of the injured person and also on the basis of CCTV footage taken from the house of the injured person and the vicinity. The said CCTV footage categorically indicates that the applicant, Vipin and Amarpal were seen going on a motorcycle towards the house of the injured person and the applicant is stated to have knocked the door of the injured person and got it opened.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that no role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. The allegations are vague. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained vide second supplementary affidavit filed in Court today. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.1.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.
11. Let the applicant- Gajraj, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
