Application for bail in murder case. Court released applicant on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions restricting adjournments, attendance, and misuse of bail, directing formation of charges and expeditious trial.
Release of applicant on personal bond and two local sureties with conditions regarding adjournments and attendance during trial.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23877 of 2018 Applicant :- Nitesh Verma @ Ashwani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Solanki,Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Nitesh Verma @ Ashwani with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2018, under Sections 396, 201 I.P.C. & 10/12 of D.A.A. Act, Police Station Ekdil, District Etawah.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that the F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.02.2018 by one Amar Singh Chaukidar against unknown persons stating therein that he had gone for nature's call at about 08:00 in the morning and while returning, he saw a dead body lying in the field. There were head injuries on the dead body. Therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons. On the basis of mobile of the deceased wherein the accused persons have put their SIM, which was put into surveillance and by which the name of the accused persons have surfaced. Subsequently, on the information of informer on 25.02.2018, four persons, namely, Nitesh Verma @ Ashwani (applicant), Babloo, Mohit @ Padda, Vickky @ Aman were arrested. In their confessional statement, the name of the applicant has surfaced. It is further argued that the truck tyre lever and mobile of the deceased have been recovered from the co-accused- Babloo. It is further argued that the vehicle was found near the house of the applicant, which was used in the incident and, therefore, pointing out his involvement in the present case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is next submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement of the applicant and there is no eye witness or public witness or any independent witness of the said incident. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the coaccused Babloo, from whom truck tyre lever and mobile have been recovered. Co-accused Sanjai @ Mintu, having identical role, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.20812 of 2018. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the
ground of parity. Criminal history of the applicant is explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.02.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to 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.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
Order Date :- 5.8.2019 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions given that no direct evidence exists against him beyond confessional statements.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶15
AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nitesh Verma @ Ashwani
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
