JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is brother of deceased girl; that the sister of applicant disappeared from home on 01.09.2016, of which missing report was given by mother of applicant at P.S. Rajeypur; that subsequently when dead body of sister of applicant recovered then Vinod Kumar, the brother of applicant lodged F.I.R. against Anil and Swadesh under sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. for kidnapping and murder of his sister; that Vinod Kumar is real brother of applicant; that the police did not conduct fair investigation and after recording the statement of named accused Anil Kumar, falsely implicated, the applicant and his brother Vinod Kumar, who is first informant, apart, from others on the pretext that the death of sister of applicant was committed by applicant with his two brothers and two others; that the allegations of honor killing are absolutely wrong and incorrect; that sister of applicant was minor and had not made marriage with anybody else so merely for the reason that she was enticed away by the named accused, the applicant may not have any reason or motive to cause her death; that the alleged confessional statement of applicant before Ram Asre is false and incorrect and no such confessional statement was given by applicant or his brother jointly or separately; that the co-accused Raja Ram, Shiwam, and Vinod Kumar have been granted bail by the Court vide orders dated 05.01.2017, 03.02.2017, 06.03.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 262 of 2017, 4065 of 2017 and 6887 of 2017, copies of which have been produced for perusal; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse of the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 08.09.2016. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. 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.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. 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 Pramod Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2016, under sections 147, 302 and 201 I.P.C. P.S. Rajeypur District Farrukhabad 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 harm and harass the complainant and prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever. (iv) 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.