Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 781 (ALL)

Shanker Lal v. State of U. P.

2017-03-20

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dinesh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of first informant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion; that as per averments made in F.I.R. the incident of loot and murder in question has taken place in the night and there is no eye witness of the incident; that in the statement of maid servant of house of deceased it has been stated that the Milkman, Vanman (vehicle driver) and an electrician Anil from the shop of Vishal Agarwal used to come to the house of deceased; that the applicant is doing business with above Vishal Agarwal whose electrician Anil allegedly visited the house of deceased; that the applicant has been picked from his home at Tehsil Bahedi and recovery of Rs.23,000/- and his own mobile was shown from him along with recovery of different looted articles and money from co-accused Brijesh Gupta, Vishal Agarwal and Anil; that the recovery has been falsely planted of which there is no independent witness; that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant and his confessional statement recorded in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that according to the statements of co-accused, which are not admissible in evidence, the role of doing Reki has been assigned to applicant while the role of causing fatal injuries to the entire family of Naresh Sethi has been assigned to co-accused Anil and Ashad; that the case of applicant is clearly distinguishable from main accused Anil and Ashad; that co-accused Vishal Agarwal with similar role has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.2.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5232 of 2017, copy produced for perusal; 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 5.10.2016. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that brutal murder of all the family members has been committed during the loot. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that brutal murder of all the family members has been committed during the loot. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused 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. Let the applicant Shanker Lal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 617 of 2016, under Sections 302, 394, 411, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, 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.