Goldi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29321 of 2023 Applicant :- Goldi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi,Atul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shravana Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shravana Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel 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-Goldi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.43 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 506, 302 IPC, registered at Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur.

¶4The FIR of the matter was lodged on 24.2.2023 by Ompal against the applicant and eight other named and one unknown person alleging therein that on 21.2.2023, at about 2 p.m., the accused persons entered in the house and assaulted his son Lokesh with sharp-edged weapon. His wife intervened who was also assaulted by them. The accused persons assaulted on the heads of Lokesh and Kalawati with sharp-edged weapon due to which they became seriously injured. On hearing the shouts, the persons of nearby came there. Both of them were taken to the Government hospital and admitted there but looking to the critical condition of Lokesh, he was referred to P.G.I Chandigarh where he died on

23.2.2023. His wife is still in critical condition. The FIR be thus lodged and action be taken.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the FIR general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including applicant and unknown person. It is argued that Kalawati, the alleged injured was interrogated by the Investigating Officer who did not name the applicant in her statement whereas she states of co-accused Nitin @ Nikki throwing cooker on the head of Lokesh and co-accused Shubham assaulting Lokesh with danda and stated that she was assaulted by the accused persons. The implication of the applicant in the present case is false. Even the other eye-witnesses have not assigned the role of assault on the applicant. There is no recovery either from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out, para 17 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court The applicant has no criminal history, para 22 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 8.5.2023.

¶6Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and is stated to have assaulted the deceased and the injured along with other co-accused persons but could not dispute the fact that the injured did not name the applicant in her statement.

¶7After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that in the FIR general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including applicant and unknown person. The injured Kalawati did not name the applicant as accused. She states of assault on her and the deceased by Nitin @ Nikki and Shubham.

¶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-Goldi, 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. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 14.12.2023 Gaurav Kuls High Court of Judicature at Allahabad