Tinku v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32560 of 2023 Applicant :- Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harshit Mishra,Yogendra Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Yogendra Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Tinku, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 627 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 436, 506, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

¶4The FIR of the matter was lodged on 23.08.2022 at about 11:30 pm by Satendra for an incident alleged to have taken place on

22.08.2022 at 20:00 hrs stating therein that his uncle Ram Gopal was unmarried aged about 43 years. He used to comment on girls of Ram Bharose who is his neighbour. Repeatedly he asked not to do it but he did not mend his ways. One day he commented on the daughter of the neighbour on which the accused persons came but he ran away. Later on when his uncle came back the accused persons assaulted him with lathi, danda, bricks and stones. The informant due to fear did not come out of the house. In the morning someone informed the police on Dial 112 after which the dead body was taken by the police.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per FIR the deceased was murdered in the night but the information about the murder was given to the police by someone in the morning. The FIR was lodged on the next morning. It is argued that the said story is consistent with the fact that the deceased was murdered by someone. There was no eye witness of the murder and subsequently the dead body is recovered in the morning and then the police was informed and the FIR was lodged. It is argued that even as per the FIR seven persons including the applicant have been made as an accused. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other accused persons of assaulting upon the deceased. It is argued that there is no use of any weapon or arms by the applicant. It is argued that co-accused Diksha and Km. Puja have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1607 of 2023 (Diksha and another Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 8 to the affidavit. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.08.2022.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶7After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the FIR has been lodged on the next day of the alleged incident. The police was also informed by someone else on the next day in the morning on 23.08.2022 whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place in the night. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Co-accused Diksha and Km. Puja have been granted bail.

¶8Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9Let the applicant Tinku, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when 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.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶10The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶11The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad