This judgment grants bail to the applicant, Nitesh Sharma, accused in a murder case. The court finds the case fit for bail after hearing arguments and noting the discrepancy in statements while imposing strict conditions.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and raising.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reserved
Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11663 of 2018
Applicant :- Nitesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 405 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the instant FIR of the incident was registered after delay of four days by one Virendra Singh Goswami, the father of the deceased against some unknown person mentioning therein that his son Manish went out in the evening of 22.05.2017 and since then his whereabouts were not known. On 25.05.2017 on the information received which was came to his knowledge that unidentified dead body is lying in Bagla Hospital and after hearing he went to see the dead body and identified the same as his son's dead body. The post mortem was conduct on 25.05.2017 and autopsy report which is annexed as Annexure-3 shows that the deceased was brutally killed by some sharp edged weapons and according to the doctor the death of about four days back. In the first 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the informant has reiterated the version of the FIR, however in the second 161 Cr.P.C. statement he has given a vivid description raising a suspicion on the present applicant Nitesh Shamra. It is admission of the informant who is father that his son was came into contact with some drug paddlers and was become habitual having smack or other psychotropic substance. Lateron in the said 161 Cr.P.C. statement he states that an extrajudicial confession was made by the co-accused Sanjai revealing him that the deceased was having ill eye over his wife and in retaliation to the same he has killed the deceased with the help of present applicant. On the basis of extrajudicial confession and the co-accused Sanjai was arrested on his pointing out he has recovered one knife was alleged to be shown by the police.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has neither made any confession nor has got any motive to commit the offence
and nor there is any recovery of any incriminating article at the pointing out of the present applicant, except there is conversation on telephone between the deceased and the co-accused. It is admitted that the deceased was a habitual of having psychotopic substance and the applicant has not got role or motive to commit the offence. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 24.06.2017 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant- Nitesh Sharma be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 405 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras with the following conditions:-
(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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.
(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant/applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 13.4.2018 Abhishek Sri.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail during the trial in a murder case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nitesh Sharma
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
