Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1348 (ALL)

Munna v. State of U. P.

2015-05-22

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the first version of the prosecution came after a prolonged delay, as the incident is said to have taken place on 26.2.2014 while the N.C.R. giving the information about the incident was lodged on 1.3.2014. Submission is that this prolonged delay has given the opportunity to the prosecution witnesses to improve upon and change the prosecution version and give out the same after due deliberation and concert. Learned counsel has further pointed out that even in the N.C.R. which was lodged on 01.03.2014 only the blunt weapons lathi and rod are alleged to have been used in the incident. Further submission is that the medical examination report of the injured would indicate that he has received incised woulds which can be caused only by a sharp edged weapon. Submission is that as admittedly to the prosecution the incident is said to have taken place in the mid night, the period when there was hardly any light, and therefore, the whole prosecution story was within the realm of conjectures as neither the injured nor the witnesses were able to identify the accused or the weapons used by them. That is the reason why such a prolonged delay has taken place in lodging the N.C.R. Contention is that the contradiction in between the N.C.R. and the medical examination report is sufficient to expose the falsity of allegations. It is further contended that though injured in his statement has tried to reconcile the medical examination with the prosecution story by attributing Gadasa but it is obviously apparent that it is an improvised statement. Further submission is that the alleged injured is leading a normal life and is out of danger. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Learned counsel has emphasized upon the period of detention which the applicant has already undergone as he is languishing in jail since 24.7.2014 and there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual situation. 5. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant-Munna, involved in Case Crime No.41 of 2014, u/s 323/308/506 I.P.C., P.S.-Chaubeypur, District-Varanasi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.