Rahul Jatav vs State Of U.P.

Raj Beer Singh, J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 340 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Sasni Gate, District Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

According to the prosecution version, the informant has lodged a missing report on 19.06.2022, alleging that on 18.06.2022 his father Naseeruddin has left the house for plying his E-rickshaw but after that he did not return back. On 26.06.2022 a dead-body was recovered from a pond near Pala Fatak, which was identified to be of deceased Naseeruddin. Thereafter, the first information report of this case was lodged on 27.06.2022.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant-accused is not named in the first information report, which was lodged by the informant against unknown person. It was stated that on 30.08.2022, the applicant and the co-accused Bijendra @ Aashu @ Tesha were apprehended by the police and on the basis of their confessional statements made before police, they were falsely implicated in this case. Recovery of one motorcycle has been shown from applicant but the said motorcycle belongs to applicant and it cannot be said as incriminating evidence. In alleged C.C.T.V. footage collected during investigation, only it was shown that some persons were going on motorcycle and they have removed battery from E-rickshaw but their identity is not clear. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident and that there is also no evidence that deceased was 'last seen' with applicant-accused. It has further been argued that the applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 30.08.2022, having no criminal history, and that in case, applicant-accused is enlarged on bail, the applicant-accused will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

Let the applicant-accused Rahul Jatav involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(ii) The applicant-accused shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

(v) The applicant-accused 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant-accused in accordance with law.