Hon'ble Court allowed bail application under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 34 for inconsistent FIR allegations and lack of recovery witness. Application permits release on bond and sureties with standard bail conditions.
Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and influencing witnesses.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113902
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14414 of 2023
Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Rai,Akash Tomar,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 45 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 34 of IPC, Police Station Rotha, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged against 7 persons and 5-6 unknown persons. In the first information report it was alleged that deceased Guddu and injured Sanjay were fired by the named persons by firearm weapon. The postmortem discloses the injury on the person of the deceased Guddu to be incised wound, therefore, there are material contradictions about the weapon used in the crime as alleged in the first information report and in the post mortem report. It is also submitted that thereafter the alleged eye witness named in the first information report such as complainant Pawan Soni, Nisha and Smt. Vati Devi assigned the weapons in the hands of the named persons such as Lathi, danda, iron rod and Balkati. It is submitted that co-accused Sanjay, Bhushan, Navneet @ Barhasinga, Anand and Devendra have already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc.Bail Application Nos. 36361 of 2022, 49140 of 2022, 6720 of 2023 59332 of 2022 and 11686 of 2023 respectively. So far as the recovery of 'Balkati' on the pointing of applicant is concerned, there is no public witness and that the statement of the applicant was not taken on the presence of the two independent witnesses. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843. It is submitted that Investigating Officer did not record the statement of injured person Sanjay who would have been the
star witness of the case. It is submitted that as per medical jurisprudence of Modi on the parietal region the injury sustained through a hard blunt object may be the nature of the incised wound. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.03.2022 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that so far as the injury no.4 sustained by the deceased is concerned, it discloses that 8 x 3 cm incised wound present over left side occipital region brain deep cavity wound brain material comes out from the wound sharp margin which is caused by Balkati by the applicant.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Devendra in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Mohit
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a case for bail in a murder charge alleging falsification of evidence and incrimination of an eye witness.
Whether to grant bail to the applicant by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
Whether bail conditions can be imposed to prevent tampering with prosecution evidence and witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843Referred¶8
Devendra
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mayank Kumar Jain
Parties & counsel
