Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 736 (ALL)

AMAN MANI TRIPATHI v. C. B. I.

2017-03-09

VIPIN SINHA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vipin Sinha, J.—Supplementary affdiavit as well as two rejoinder-affidavits filed in Court today, are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Manan Kumar Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajeev Misra, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi and Sri Sai Girdhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi and Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant/informant and Sri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case R.C. No. 6(s)/2015/SCU.V (CBI v. Aman Mani Tripathi), under Sections 498A, 302, 120B IPC police station Sector II/CBI New Delhi with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The contention as raised at the Bar by Sri Manan Kumar Misra, learned Senior counsel for the applicant is to the effect that the present applicant had entered into a marriage with the deceased, namely, Smt. Sara Singh sometime in July, 2013 and they had planned for a trip to New Delhi/Leh by road and while on the road trip by car, they met with an accident on 9.7.2015 and in the said incident, the wife Sara was badly injured and while she was being taken to the hospital, she expired and she was declared brought dead by the District Hospital, Firozabad. It is further contended that the death of the girl took place on account of the said accident and the factum of the accident is not being disputed by any of the parties even though the manner of the accident is being disputed. It is also contended that the applicant is in jail since 25.11.16 and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail. Sri Misra, learned senior counsel for the applicant has vehmentaly contended that there is no evidence whatsoever which may show the participation of the applicant as per the role which has been assigned by the CBI and as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is due to injuries received in the said accident and there is no reason to doubt the said post-mortem report even otherwise there is not a single witness who may show that the applicant has even indulged any such conduct or behaviour as has been mentioned in paragraph No. 11 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI. It has also been contended that before the date of accident no complaint whatsoever was lodged by the family members of the deceased against the applicant. 4. Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has drawn the attention of the Court to the report of the Central Raod Research Institute dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure CA-4), report of the medical board which was constituted by All India Institute of Mecical Science, New Delhi with regard to the nature of injuries and also the report submitted by C.F.S.L., New Delhi (CA-3) and on the basis of these three documents, it has been contended that the death of the wife Sara was not on account of the accident but was as a result of a preplanned murder. Much emphasis has been placed on the report of the Panel of the Doctors of AIIMS to suggest that the girl was initially strangulated and thereafter the crime scene was created in which the accident became the culminating point. However, nevertheless it has not been disputed that the videography of the post-mortem was not done. It has also not been disputed that when the information was sent to the family members of the deceased, mother of the deceased had arrived and the post-mortem was done in her presence and other family members, moreover, certain doctors who were close and well known to the family of the deceased were also present at the spot and they had taken certain photographs of the body before the post-mortem was done but in spite of these no objections were taken with regard to the videography of the post-mortem not being done or with regrad to any second post-mortem being done, in case, they had any such suspicion. It has also not been disputed that the report of the penal of the doctors is solely based on the photographs which were provided to the panel of the doctors. There is no eye-witness account which may show that the girl was either tortured or threatened on the way or she was injured whatsoever, though vague allegations without any supportive documents have been made in paragraph No. 11 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI. 5. The Court has been informed that the applicant has a criminal history of three cases. 5. The Court has been informed that the applicant has a criminal history of three cases. However, the said criminal history has been duly exaplained in paragraph No. 5 to the supplementary-affidavit which reads as follows: “1. Case crime No. 51 of 2014, under Sections 364, 386, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.. The applicant has been charge-sheeted in the aforementioned case and also been enlarged on bail. 2. Case Crime No. 748-A of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali - Sadar, District Maharajganj. The applicant has been charge-sheeted in the above mentioned case. The applicant has also been enlarged on bail. 3. Case Crime No. 748-B of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 352, 307, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(1) SC ST Act. P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Maharajganj. The police have submitted the final report in the aforesaid case. The applicant has been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case.” 6. It has further been informed that initially investigation was being done by the police but subsequently vide notification dated 14.10.2015, the matter was transferred to the CBI and the CBI after investigation has now submitted a charge-sheet before the Court concerned and a cognizance has also been taken by the concerned Court. It has not been disputed that the main crux of the charge-sheet is only the documentary evidence and not any eye-witness account. Documentary evidence is already available with the CBI with regard to which charge-sheet has also been filed and cognizance has also been taken and there is thus no possible apprehension of the applicant either hampering with the investigation or tampering with the evidence or threatening anybody in case he is released on bail and thus, on these contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has sought indulgence of this Court while consideration of the bail application, keeping in view that the entire CBI case is based on documentary evidence, to a very large extent, a fact which is not being dipusted by the learned counsel for the CBI. Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has submitted that in case there is criminal history then bail ought not to be granted and the applicant deserves no sympathy in this regard. 7. Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has submitted that in case there is criminal history then bail ought not to be granted and the applicant deserves no sympathy in this regard. 7. However, from perusal of the record it is clear that the charge-sheet is based on hypothetical issues and on the basis of some photographs and a report has been given by the doctors of the AIIMS that a crime has been committed subject to certain clarifications/verifications. 8. As far as report of the doctor is concerned, the same has yet to be seen as to whether, it is credible or not after the doctors are examined/cross-examined before the trial Court and the evidence is produced in this regard before the trial Court. It is an established law by the Apex Court as rendered in many cases that in cases seeking bail, the Court should adopt a liberal attitude until and unless there is some clinching evidence to show the participation of the accused in a heinous crime or which may demonstrate that there is likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the evidence or trying to influence the witnesses. In the present case a charge-sheet has already been filed and the same is based on documentary evidence and there is no apprehension of the applicant tampering or hampering with the investigation. The Court concenred has also taken cognizance on the said charge-sheet filed by the CBI. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 10. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. Let the applicant Aman Mani Tripathi involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. 2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected. 5. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. 2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected. 5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it would be open to the opposite party to approach the Court concerned for cancellation of bail. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the Court below be decided expeditiously, if possible within a period of one year strictly, on day to day basis in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment. It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the Court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned Court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses. 11. Apart from the aforesaid conditions, it is further provided that the applicant shall surrender his passport within a period of two weeks’ from the date of his release before the concerned Court and shall co-operate with the investigation. It is further provided that the applicant shall present himself before the Court concerned on each and every date and will not seek any adjournment whatsoever and in case any adjournment is sought on any expceptional circumstances, the Court concerned shall specify the reasons in the order itself while granting such adjournment. It is also provided that in case, there is any change of address, the concerned S.S.P. and the Court shall be immediately informed. It is also provided that in case, there is any change of address, the concerned S.S.P. and the Court shall be immediately informed. Liberty is also being given to the learned counsel for the complainant to file a bail cancellation application before the Court concerned itself, in case, there is any violation on the part of the applicant of the aforesaid conditions. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Court below for necessary compliance.