Allahabad High CourtSatyaveer vs State Of U.P. on 10 August, 2021Bench: Samit GopalHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD\n \n \n\n?Court No. - 52\n \n\n \nCase :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28135 of 2021\n \n\n \nApplicant :- Satyaveer\n \nOpposite Party :- State of U.P.\n \nCounsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla\n \nCounsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.\n \n\n \nHon'ble Samit Gopal,J.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.This bail application underSection 439of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Satyaveer, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 31 of 2020, underSections 302,201I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bitholi, District Etawah.Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant and one other co-accused namely Virendra Singh are named as accused in the first information report but the falsity of the prosecution case, is apparent from the fact itself that Virendra Singh has been exonerated by the police during investigation. Learned counsel has further placed before the Court Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit and has argued that initially, an information was given by Santosh Kumar, the father of the deceased that his son aged about 10 years, went from the house on 07.09.2020 at about 10:00 AM. Later on, his dead body was found in the jungle. The said information was recorded in GD No. 018 dated 07.09.2020 at 13:17 hrs at the police station. Subsequently, the present first information report has been registered on 08.09.2020 at about 17:47 hrs by the same person who lodged the missing report i.e. Santosh Kumar. It is argued that the present case, is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is further argued that although the first informant has reiterated the same version as that of the first information report but his daughter, Kumari Muskan was interrogated by police and had claimed herself to be an eye-witness. On a specific question, by the Investigating Officer, as to whether she had seen the two accused persons taking away her brother, she has stated that she was going towards the jungle and she saw the two persons talking near the village and her brother was passing by after which Satyaveer on making gesture to her brother that they are going to the jungle to pick the feathers of peacock to which Virendra Singh refused them to go there, then she went away. It is argued that she is not even an eye-witness to the last seen of the accused persons being in company with the deceased. It is argued that Pappu son of Sukhvasi whose statement is annexed as Annexuer-5 to the affidavit is also an eye-witness who has been arrayed as a witness in the charge-sheet has changed the entire prosecution story and has given a totally different version therein. It is argued that links in the chain are completely missing. It is further argued that although the police has shown the recovery of a kulhadi from the pointing out of the applicant but there is no corroboration of use of the same and the same is not even found to have been blood stained. It is argued that the name of the applicant has surfaced for the first time in the first information report registered and prior to which there was a missing report of the deceased, which changes the nature and the story of the prosecution case. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 09.09.2020.Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is an allegation against him and co-accused of taking away the deceased and committing his murder but did not deny the arguments as raised above.After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant and one other co-accused namely Virendra Singh are named as accused in the first information report and roles have been assigned to them of committing the murder but Virendra Singh has been exonerated by the police. The present case, is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The links in the chain are conspicuously missing.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- Satyaveer, 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 underSection 313Cr.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 underSection 229-AIPC.(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.The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 10.8.2021\n \nAS Rathore\n \n(Samit Gopal,J.)