Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1560 (ALL)

Prem v. State of U. P.

2015-06-17

HARSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. or the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that according to prosecution story there was some dispute between deceased and co-accused Ganja Raju over money upon which he had threatened the deceased; that in the statements of father and brother of deceased as well as of Sachin under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only doubt has been expressed on the basis of rumour about threat by Raju, Monu, Kuldeep as well as the applicant to the deceased; that the statement of Somu, the nephew of deceased and son of first informant has been recorded after four days of the incident in which he has stated to have last seen the deceased going by Tempo along with accused Raju, Monu, Kuldeep and the applicant; that in the confessional statement of co-accused Monu, who has admitted to have caused death of deceased, the applicant has been given role of catching hold; that the applicant had no concern with the deceased and had no reason to cause his death; that there are material contradictions in the statements of several witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with co-accused named in the F.I.R. particularly Raju and Monu; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 24.3.2015. 3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that there is evidence of last seeing the deceased in the company of applicant and others. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment 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. 5. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment 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. 5. Let the applicant Prem be released on bail in Case Crime No.318 of 2015, under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions: - (i) The applicant will co-operate with the 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.