In a bail application, the court found it a fit case to release the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and compliance with standard conditions, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Release on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties each, with conditions to cooperate with trial and not tamper with evidence.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5303 of 2019
Applicant :- Raju Baheliya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is not named in F.I.R. and his name has surfaced for the first time in confessional statements of co-accused Daya Ram and Golu @ Pankaj Yadav; that Daya Ram and Golu @ Pankaj Yadav are alleged to have confessed that Golu @ Pankaj Yadav hired applicant and Narendra Singh, as sharp shooters for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for eliminating Naveen, deceased and during crime for communications phone of co-accused Daya Ram was used; that first informant and alleged eye witnesses Nitin, brother of deceased have not named applicant in their statements under sections 161 Cr.P.C.; that co-accused Narendra Singh and Daya Ram have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 25.9.2018 and 2.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.35945 of 2018 and 40917 of 2018, copies filed at Annexure No.6; that applicant has explained his criminal history in para 3 of supplementary affidavit; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 17.3.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Raju Baheliya be released on bail in Case Crime No.754 of 2017, under Sections 302/34, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of
charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. Order Date :- 15.2.2019 Tamang
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail being not named in the FIR and whose name surfaced in confessional statements of co-accused?
Raju Baheliya
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
