Pappu vs State Of U.P.

Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The accused- applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 398 of 2020, under Section 302/ 34 I.P.C., Police Station Nagina, District- Bijnor.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the FIR, the applicant along with other co accused persons is assigned the role of assaulting with lathi. Out of the four accused persons, Rampal was exonerated by the Investigating Officer during investigation. As per the FIR, Arjun the first informant and his mother are shown to be the eye witnesses of the alleged incident. Both these eye witnesses and the shop keeper Nirmal, in front of whose shop the incident is said to have taken place, have not supported the prosecution case and all of the three witnesses have been declared hostile by the trial court. As per the post mortem report, five injuries have been found on the person of the deceased. Out of these five injuries, three are lacerated wounds, one is incised wound and the fifth is multiple abrasions. As per the FIR, it is not clear as to who has inflicted these injuries. The prosecution case has not been supported by the witnesses. The applicant is languishing in jail from 8.9.2020, hence, the prayer for bail is made.

Per contra learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that though the first informant and his mother have not supported the prosecution case but the independent witnesses Shyam Singh, Pramod, Dhyan Singh, Mahavir and Kalua have supported the prosecution version in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C.

As per the first information report, the role assigned to the applicant is of assault with lathi. As per the FIR, the first informant and his mother are said to be the eye witnesses of the alleged incident. The incident is said to have taken place in front of the shop of one Nirmal and no other witness is named in the first informant report. It is mentioned therein that other persons also came on the spot but who were the other witnesses, their names have not been mentioned in the first information report. In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the first informant, his mother and witness Nirmal have supported the prosecution version but in the trial court neither the first informant, nor his mother who are the eye witnesses of the alleged incident, nor shop keeper Nirmal supported the prosecution version.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Pappu, who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.