The Single Judge allowed the bail application of the accused, holding it a fit case for bail despite the gravity of the offence due to lack of eyewitness evidence and contested recovery of the weapon.
The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties.
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.
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19168 of 2019
Applicant :- Rahul Pandit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shekhar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 2377/2018, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, police station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR and that he was named by complainant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but the complainant is not an eye witness of the incident. It was further submitted that neither any witness has stated anything against the applicant nor there is any evidence against him. It has further been argued that alleged recovery of knife shown at the instance of applicant, is false and baseless and was shown from the open place. It was further submitted that co-accused Gaurav Gautam has already been enlarged on bail by Sessions Court. It was also submitted that applicant is in judicial custody since 17.12.2018 and in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued
that weapon used in the incident has been recovered at the instance of the applicant and co-accused Vikas alias Vicky Rawat. However, it could not be disputed that there is no eye witness of alleged incident nor any other such evidence like last seen has been indicated against the applicant.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, facts of the case, nature of accusations, period of custody, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Rahul Pandit involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Anand
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused is eligible for bail in a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Whether the lack of eye-witness evidence and disputed recovery of weapon justify granting bail.
Whether the applicant, already in judicial custody, will mislead the liberty of bail.
Rahul Pandit
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
