This judgment grants bail to an applicant falsely implicated in a murder case. The applicant was not named in the FIR, and the court found him fit for bail considering confessional statements, CCTV footage, co-accused bail status, and lack of criminal history without commenting on merits.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two 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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3409 of 2020
Applicant :- Abhishek Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Roshan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sangam Lal Kesharwani
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of first informant, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused Rohit Pradhan in police custody, which is not binding on applicant; that as per confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Pradhan a few days back deceased had publicly insulted co-accused Vineet and Rajpal in campus of Subharti University and they had taken pledge to take revenge from him and on the date of incident, all persons committed the incident in question in the planned manner resulting in death of Sanjay Gautm by causing fatal injuries with bricks; that applicant had no motive to cause death of Sanjay Gautam; that applicant did not participate in the incident in question in any manner whatsoever and did not cause any injury to deceased; that even in the statement confessional statement of Rohit Pradhan, applicant has not been assigned with any active role in causing injuries to deceased; that applicant has been picked from home with his motorcycle; that applicant did not participate in the incident with motorcycle or otherwise; that co-accused Vishal Dhaiya @ Golu and Rohti @ Aditya @ Siddhu with identical role have been granted bail vide orders dated 22.01.2020 and 23.01.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2991 of 2020 and 3061 of 2020 copies of which have been produced for perusal and taken on record; that case of applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Vineet and Rajpal that applicant has no criminal history; that case of applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Rohit Pradhan; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 16.09.2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first
informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that involvement of applicant in the incident in question is clear from C.C.T.V. footage.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering 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 applicant Abhishek be released on bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. and 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with 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 :- 3.2.2020 Md Faisal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for bail is a fit case for release of the applicant.
Whether the applicant is appropriately distinguished from co-accused and the totality of circumstances warrants bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abhishek
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
