PAPPU ALIAS JAFAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.626 of 2008, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Fardhan, District Kheri. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that the F.I.R. discloses the main motive against the co-accused Ravindra Mishra with whom some altercation allegedly took place at the petrol pump with Sanjay Gupta (deceased) working as Munim as the Petrol Pump. The report has been lodged against unknown persons wherein no allegation of robbery/dacoity was made. It was an F.I.R. simplicitor under Section 302 I.P.C. and apparently in the background of the aforesaid motive the accusation of alleged killing of Sanjay Gupta was made. Similarly in the initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also the first informant did not say anything regarding the alleged dacoity/robbery. However, in the subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after about 14 days, it was for the first time that the allegation of robbery was also made. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of Arvind Mishra would show that the main role of firing has been attributed to Arvind Mishra himself. However, the alleged complicity of the applicant is said to be based on the aforesaid confessional statement coupled with an alleged recovery of an amount of Rs.4500/- from him. It is emphasized that no identification whatsoever was ever got conducted while the F.I.R. is against unknown persons. Moreover it is also submitted that co-accused Bundela alias Chand Minya having almost similar allegation against him (recovery of Rs.3150/- was alleged against him), has already been enlarged on bail by this Court's order dated 21.01.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.323 (B) of 2009. Learned A.G.A. points out that there was no criminal history against the co-accused Bundela alias Chand Minya whereas this applicant has criminal history to his credit. In reply to this learned counsel for the applicant points out that after the alleged recovery and arrest in the same sequence two false cases have been slapped along with the case under Gangster Act. One of those cases is said to be of alleged attempt or murder on the same police party without causing any injury and the second case pertains to an alleged theft of four wheeler. In both the cases the applicant is on bail. He is languishing in jail from 20.09.2008 i.e. for the last about eleven months. The bail is however, opposed by learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the ground of parity, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail on heavy sureties and on some condition. Let the applicant (Pappu alias Jafar) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.40,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned. It is made clear that if the applicant does not cooperate with the trial or absents himself without any sufficient cause the court below can cancel his bail.