Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1238 (ALL)

Manoj v. State of U. P.

2008-07-04

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2008
VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant seeks bail in crime no. 1193 of 2006 under Section 302 I. P. C. of P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar. ( 2 ) I have heard arguments of Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State and also perused the record carefully. ( 3 ) AN F. I. R. was lodged on 22. 08. 2006 at 10. 10 a. m. at P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar by the complainant Rishi Pal against the applicant Manoj and his brother Vinod. A case under Section 302 I. P. C. at crime no. 1193/06 was registered against them. The allegations made in the F. I. R. , in brief, are that both the accused committed the murder of their father Mehak Singh in the field on 22. 08. 2006 at about 09. 00 a. m. by causing injuries to him by means of firearms. ( 4 ) PRINCIPLE of stare decisis is the ground for bail in this case, about which it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after contest, the co-accused Vinod has been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Muzaffar Nagar vide judgement dated 17. 08. 2007 passed in S. T. No. 344 of 2007 (State Vs. Vinod Kumar @ Vikki) and hence, the applicant should be granted bail as the entire prosecution case and complicity of both the accused in the incident of murder of their father has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court in aforesaid Session Trial. ( 5 ) IT was further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that trial of the applicant is barred on the principle of stare decisis due to acquittal of co-accused Vinod and entire proceeding arising out of crime no. 1193 of 2006 pending against the applicant is liable to be quashed and hence on this ground, the applicant deserve bail. For this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following rulings:- (i) Baij Nath and others vs. State of U. P. [2004 (49) ACC 303]. (ii) Prem Kumar and another vs. State of U. P. and another [2005 (53)ACC 593]. (iii) Rashim Vs. State of U. P. and another [2005 (53) ACC 636]. For this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following rulings:- (i) Baij Nath and others vs. State of U. P. [2004 (49) ACC 303]. (ii) Prem Kumar and another vs. State of U. P. and another [2005 (53)ACC 593]. (iii) Rashim Vs. State of U. P. and another [2005 (53) ACC 636]. (iv) Rajendra Kumar vs. State of U. P. and another [2006 (56) ACC 611]. (v) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Akhilesh Singh (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 478. ( 6 ) THE learned A. G. A. and learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand vehemently contended that the applicant does not deserve bail in this heinous crime and the trial pending against him is not barred. For this contention, reliance has been placed on the case of Rajan Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 209. The contention of the learned A. G. A. and learned counsel for the complainant was that inspite of the acquittal of co-accused Vinod, the trial of the applicant has to be made and since the applicant remained absconding for about two years, hence, he should not be granted bail, because after being released on bail, he may abscond again and will not attend the Court. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that revision has been preferred by the complainant against the judgement dated 17. 08. 2007 passed in S. T. No. 344 of 2007 and hence, that judgement is not relevant at this stage. ( 7 ) HAVING carefully gone through the judgement dated 17. 08. 2007 of S. T. No. 344 of 2007, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-IV in this case, in my opinion, prima facie case for granting bail to the accused is made out. The following findings recorded by learned Trial Court in the aforesaid judgement are worth mentioning:- ( 8 ) THREE witnesses namely P. W. 1, Rishi Pal, P. W. 2, Hukam Singh and P. W. 3, Devi Chandra were examined in the aforesaid session trial. Although in the F. I. R. , the complainant Rishi Pal alone has been shown as eyewitness of the incident of murder of deceased Mehak Singh, but during investigation two more witnesses namely Hukum Singh and Devi Chand were introduced. Although in the F. I. R. , the complainant Rishi Pal alone has been shown as eyewitness of the incident of murder of deceased Mehak Singh, but during investigation two more witnesses namely Hukum Singh and Devi Chand were introduced. After making evaluation of the testimony of these witnesses, the following observations have been made by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid judgement:- ( 9 ) ALTHOUGH I fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. that in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rajan Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2006) (1) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 209, the trial of the applicant is not barred and criminal proceedings arising out of crime no. 1193 of 2006 under Section 302 I. P. C. of P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar pending against the applicant cannot be quashed due to the acquittal of co-accused Vinod in S. T. No. 344 of 2007, but having regard to the above mentioned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the said judgement, in my opinion, the applicant deserves bail in this case. Let the applicant Manoj involved in case crime no. 1193 of 2006 under Section 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and executing an undertaking in the following terms:- 1. The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating the witnesses. 2. He shall cooperate with the investigation and speedy trial. 3. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 4. He shall attend the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar and P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar by tenth day of each month and his attendance will be recorded. . .