Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2467 (ALL)

Sonu v. State of U. P.

2016-07-15

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Counter affidavit on behalf of the State filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the uncle of the deceased on 14.3.2015 at about 12.55 A.M. Further submission is that according to the version of the F.I.R., an information about the murder of the deceased was conveyed to him on which he had arrived at the place of occurrence where he was told by one Yogendra Singh, in whose house the deceased lived on rent, that in the intervening night at about 9.45 P.M. some person had come along with the deceased Amit, and both of them had slept in the room. But at about 12.00 in the midnight the report of gun was heard and when the aforesaid Yogendra Singh (landlord), came out, he saw one person having a country-made pistol jump from the wall and running away. But in this F.I.R. name of the assailant was not disclosed and the assailant was described as unknown. Further submission is that the same version was reiterated by the first informant when he was examined by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, when the aforesaid Yogendra Singh (landlord) was examined, he disclosed the name of the present applicant and gave the narrative before the police that it was the applicant, who had come with the deceased and had slept with the deceased in the night and in the midnight, when he heard the report of the gun, he along with his wife had come out and saw the applicant running away. Contention is that this disclosure made by the landlord Yogendra Singh and his wife stands contradicted by the complete omission of the name of the applicant in the F.I.R. and also from its omission in the statement that was given before the investigating officer. Contention is that this disclosure made by the landlord Yogendra Singh and his wife stands contradicted by the complete omission of the name of the applicant in the F.I.R. and also from its omission in the statement that was given before the investigating officer. Submission is that had there been any truth in the statement of the aforesaid landlord that he identified the applicant as the person who came and slept with the deceased in the fateful night, then there is absolutely no explanation as to why this fact had remained undisclosed by the first informant both in the F.I.R. and in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It was emphasized by the counsel that the version given by the first informant is based on the statement of the aforesaid landlord, is very much clear from the F.I.R. and yet the name of the applicant has not been disclosed. Contention is that the aforesaid contradiction is too loud and goes a long way to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant and it is so very demonstrable that the implication of the applicant in the present case is on the basis of subsequent deliberations and consultations. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than a year in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 16.4.2014 having no criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 6. 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 6. 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. 7. Let the applicant- Sonu, involved in Case Crime No. 217 of 2015, u/s 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali City, District- Bijnor, 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. 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.