Jeevan Singh vs. State Of U.P.

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46380 of 2021

Applicant :- Jeevan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Jeevan Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 505 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

First Information Report of the present case was lodged under Sections 302, 394 I.P.C. on 4.8.2020 at about 14:26 hours by the applicant Jeevan Singh himself, against unknown persons relating to murder of his father Rajbahadur Singh in which three rings and one golden locket were also looted.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the police did not do any investigation in the matter after which he has filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2838 of 2021 (Jeevan Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), with the pryer to direct the S.P., Kaushambi to handover the investigation from local police to C.B. C.I.D. for fair investigation. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 5.5.2021 by a Division Bench of this Court, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the S.P., Kaushambi/respondent no. 4 for the same prayer. The applicant communicated the said order to the S.P., Kaushambi vide letter dated 6.5.2021 which was sent by him through Speed Post, but due to inaction of the police the applicant filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3614 of 2021 (Jeevan Singh vs. Mr. Radhey Shyam, S.P.) in which vide order dated 13.9.2021 this Court directed the counsel for the opposite party to seek instructions in the matter and file an affidavit of compliance by the next date. Next date fixed in the matter was 5.10.2021. It is argued that the authorities came into action against the applicant and in a clandestine manner within ten days completed the case diary and showed arrest of the applicant four days prior to passing of the order in contempt application.

It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. The actual incident has not yet been investigated. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant in which there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-34 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.9.2021.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the matter was investigated in which implication of the applicant surfaced and as such he was made an accused in the matter.

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the first informant of the present case. There is no credible evidence against him. The incident in question is of 3.8.2020 and after about one year of the incident, the applicant is shown to be involved in the present matter.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant- Jeevan Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any

manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

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.

The bail application is allowed.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Order Date :- 18.2.2022 Naresh