Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2679 of 2023 Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶1Heard Sri Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2021 under section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sitapur.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is second bail application as the first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2707 of 2022 was rejected on 26.09.2022 and after rejection of first bail application, the fact witnesses have been examined.

¶4It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the FIR rather Haridwari, Mahendra and Ashish were named in the FIR but their names were expunged and charge-sheet was filed only against the applicant. The trial court has recorded the statement of Moti Lal (P.W.-1), who is cousin Dewar of the deceased and Ram Het @ Jangali (P.W.-2) who is real Dewar of the deceased. Moti Lal (P.W.-1) has deposed before the court below that the applicant came to the place of incident in intoxicated position and he shouted upon the police that body of the deceased will not be criminated and has given threat to the police to ablaze the jeep. On the said issue, the police became inimical and implicated the applicant falsely in the present case, however the real culprits, namely, Haridwari, Mahendra and Ashish were exonerated. Moti Lal ( P.W.-1) has further deposed before the court that Haridwari, Mahendra and Ashish were armed with Banka and Hasia and had assaulted the deceased but their names were dropped and the chargesheet was not filed against them. Similarly, the statement of Ram Het @ Jangali (P.W.-2), who is real Dewar of the deceased has been recorded before the court and he has not supported the prosecution case against the applicant and he deposed that the applicant was falsely implicated by the police, who created the pressure upon the applicant to confess the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after looking into the statement of Moti Lal (P.W.-1) and Ram Het @ Jangali (P.W.-2), who are the fact witnesses and relative of the deceased, at the moment it cannot be inferred that the applicant was involved in the commission of crime. The applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tempering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.10.2021.

¶5On the other hand, learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that Moti Lal ( P.W.-1) and Ram Het @ Jangali ( P.W.-2) have not supported the prosecution case.

¶6Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that Moti Lal (P.W.-1) and Ram Het @ Jangali ( P.W.-2) , who are the fact witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and the argument that the applicant is not named in the FIR,, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶7Let the applicant, namely, Neeraj, be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) 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 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. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 dk/ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench