Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3668 (ALL)

Jitendra Chauhan v. State of U. P.

2016-11-09

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not nominated by name in the FIR . The incident took place on 20.8.2015 and for the first time, the complicity of the applicant surfaced after so many months on 29.2.2016 in the statement of one Altamas, who claims to have overheard the conversations of the applicant and co-accused in which they are said to have impliedly admitted their guilt. Further submission is that on the same day one Tribhuwan Singh was examined, who claims himself to be the eye witness of the occurrence and gave the version that co-accused Ajit Yadav is the man, who shot at the deceased causing his death while the applicant was driving the motorcycle and he could know the name of the applicant-accused for the reason because co-accused had himself at the time of incident cried out that his name was Ajit Yadav and then he had also exhorted the applicant to drive fast and while doing so he again took the name of the applicant. Further submission is that this appears to be highly improbable story and even this kind of claim by witness Tribhuwan Singh has been made after many months of the occurrence and had there been any truth in his claim, he ought to have disclosed this fact much earlier and should not have waited for months together to tell this fact. Contention is that even according to the version given by Tribhuwan Singh when he came to know the arrest of the co-accused, he went there and saw him and thus made himself sure that accused Ajit Yadav had shot at the deceased. Further submission is that in this view of the matter also, the case of the applicant appears to be distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ajit Yadav as the post mortem examination report would indicate only one injury received by the deceased and according to prosecution version, co-accused Ajit Yadav, is the author of the injury caused to the deceased resulting his death. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.5.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 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-Jitendra Chauhan involved in Case Crime No. 153 of 2015, u/ss 302, 307 and 504 IPC P.S.- Gambhirpur, District- Azamgarh 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. 7. 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. 8. 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.