Ramesh Kumar Harijan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11917 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Harijan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Piyush Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, of Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused record.

¶2The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in FIR/case crime No.0106 of 2023 under Section 302, 201, 120-B, 404, 34 IPC, PS Kotwali Nagar, district Pratapgarh.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the complainant is the father of deceased and his statement was recorded under Section 161 CrPC in which he has mentioned that there was illicit relation of the son's wife with one co-accused Tanveer and he expressed his opinion that co-accused Tanveer could have killed his son. The confessional statement of applicant was recorded in which he has admitted that deceased was done to death by Zeeshan Kureshi, Sadan alias Babu and applicant. The applicant was present there and he had thrown the bicycle of the deceased from the place of occurrence. Similar fact is mentioned in the confessional statement of co-accused Tanveer.

¶4It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after looking into the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, it cannot be inferred that the applicant was involved in commission of crime rather, there is allegation that the applicant had thrown the bicycle from the place of occurrence and main role is assigned to other three co-accused, therefore, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the other co-accused. He has submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in Jail since

18.2.2023.

¶5On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the other co-accused.

¶6Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the argument that the applicant was not named in the FIR, the argument that in the statement of co-accused Tanveer and in confessional statement of the applicant, no role in commission of crime has been mentioned rather, the only role of throwing the bicycle from the place of occurrence is against the applicant, and his case is distinguishable, it is a fit case for bail.

¶7Let the applicant, namely, Rames Kumar Harijan 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.

¶8It 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 :- 24.11.2023 Rajneesh JR-PS) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench