Manoj Kumar Bind Alias Manje Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8280 of 2020

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Bind Alias Manje Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagat Mohan Bind,Anil Pathak,Ashish Kumar Shukla,Ashok Kumar Mishra,Girish Chandra Shukla,Vijay Kumari Pathak,Vikas Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Sageer Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1076 of 2018, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused person Sheetla Prasad, Lallan and Dinai are said to have abducted the minor niece of the informant on 20.11.2018 and is stated to have throttled her to death and thereby thrown her on the railway line. One day prior to the said incident, the applicant is said to have enticed away the deceased person and is stated to have raped her and then left her back at her house on 19.11.2018. On 21.11.2018 at about 12-00 pm, all the accused persons are stated to have come to the house of the informant and entered into a brawl with them and even damaged a wall of the house. Much prior to the said incident, the applicant and other accused persons are also stated to have outraged the modesty of the sister-in-law of the informant and the said matter was registered as FIR No. 566 of 2018 under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC at the same police station. The FIR was lodged of the incident on 24.11.2018.

¶9

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in

¶10

the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is further stated that the FIR is delayed by four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant had the knowledge of the abduction of his niece but the same has not been even reported as a missing report at the police station. It is next stated that on 23.11.2018, an application is there on record, which is a part of the case diary filed by the informant whereby he has stated that he has identified the dead body of his niece at the mortuary. Learned Senior Counsel has also stated that had the allegations levelled in the FIR been true, the same would have been levelled then and there only. The inquest proceedings and the autopsy of the deceased person were conducted on 23.11.2018 itself and the FIR has been lodged on 24.11.2018 at 11.35 am. This inordinate delay has not been explained anywhere. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that there is no eyewitness of the applicant throttling the deceased person or throwing her dead body on the railway line. It is next stated that there is no witness of applicant taking away the victim/deceased person to the railway line.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the false implication of the applicant is evident from the fact mentioned in the FIR itself, which categorically states that there was another FIR lodged as FIR No. 566 of 2018 by the sister-in-law of the informant against the co-accused persons. Learned Senior counsel has stated that all the accused persons have been nominated out of the said vengeance. It is next submitted that later, on the orders of this Court, the further investigation was taken up and the supplementary statements of witnesses have been recorded, whereby it has been stated that the applicant had abetted the niece of the informant to commit suicide. It is next stated that the said statement does not fall within the category of Section 306 IPC as in the said statement, the victim has stated that if the applicant does not marry her, she cannot live. This is not a valid ingredient of abetment. There is no positive evidence on record to suggest that the applicant had abetted the niece of the informant to commit suicide. It is next stated that the prosecution is not clear at this point of time, whether it is the case of murder or abetment of suicide. Even the statement of P.W. 1, although he has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR, is not clear about the incident

¶12

itself. He has simply stated that the applicant had brought the victim to his house after raping her, left her there and next day, he had taken her away. Learned counsel has stated that this is a very unnatural conduct on the part of the family members, as in this orthodox and non-permissive society, such conduct cannot be believed. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.9.2019 for no fault of his and the period of incarceration itself is a valid ground for bail of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and has stated that P.W. 1, the informant has levelled allegations in the FIR and there are no material contradictions in his statement. It is true that only one witness has been examined to date and no other witness has been examined.

¶14

In the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 712 it has been held as follows:-

¶15

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the said facts mentioned above and also the fact of long period of incarceration of the applicant, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the 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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Manoj Kumar Bind Alias Manje involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶18

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶20

witness.

¶21

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶22

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

v. 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶25

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶27

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Shalini

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Bind Alias Manje v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Bind Alias Manje v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preetam Singh@ Pintoo Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raja Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Naseema Vs State of U.P.