Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 59 (ALL)

Vijay v. State of U. P.

2020-01-07

AJIT SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 256 of 2019, under Sections 302, 394, 34 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Sikandrabad, district-Bulandshahar and is in jail since 25.7.2019, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 3. According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person alleging that on 12.3.2019 car bearing no. UP14GT8609 with driver Sahil Khan was missing. Later on dead body of driver Sahil Khan with said car was recovered on road side. During investigation, names of Rajiv Yadav, Kunwar Pal and present accused were surfaced. Statement of co-accused Rajiv Yadav was recorded, he stated that Kunwarpal killed the deceased and one Naresh was also indulged in this crime. Towel (gamachha) used in the crime was recovered from said car. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time in the second statement of the informant, which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-5). No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. He next submitted that similarly placed co-accused namely, Naresh and Rajeev Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 22.8.2019 and 20.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 34088 of 2019 and 48959 of 2019, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of Naresh and Rajeev, who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of merits as well as parity. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the fact that the case of the present accused is identical to that of other co-accused, who have been granted bail by another Benches of this Court. 6. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the fact that the case of the present accused is identical to that of other co-accused, who have been granted bail by another Benches of this Court. 6. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. 7. Let the applicant, Vijay be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him. (b) 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. 8. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.