Monu vs. State Of Up

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3645 of 2021

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Rajesh Kumar Kanojia Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satyam Narayan

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Satyam Narayan, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is inordinate delay of about four months in lodging first information report. He pointed out certain statements of; husband of the informant and Smt. Malti, mother-in-law of Vikas alias Bhola, which do not corroborate the version of prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant has stressed upon the fact that now it is the prosecution's case to prove whether the applicant is main accused in this case or not. It is next contended that there are general allegations and a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2020. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.

Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

Let the applicant- Monu involved in Case Crime No. 1399 of 2018, under Sections 364, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station Kankar Khera, District Meerut be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (one should be of a family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:

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

2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.

3. 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.

The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

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.

Order Date :- 22.3.2021 Digamber