1
RESERVED
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5024 OF 2010
Ramanuj
Vs.
State of U.P.
******
Hon'ble Virendra Singh, J.
(1) This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant Ramanuj
praying for releasing the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 10/2009
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B I.P.C, P.S. Ghoorpur,
District Allahabad. The first Bail Application No. 10580/2009
(Ramanuj vs. State of U.P.) was rejected on 11.08.2009, on this case
of prosecution that the accused applicant committed the murder of
Mahendra Kumar, Champa Devi and Seema Devi, thereby instigating
co accused Hemant Kumar, who is the son of accused applicant and
who had fired on Mahendra Kumar. Champa Devi and Seema Devi
since had come to rescue Mahendra Kumar therefore they were also
shot dead by co accused Hemant Kumar.
(2)Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA on behalf of
the State of U.P.
(3)In the first bail application, it was contended on behalf of accused
applicant that the only role assigned to the accused/applicant is of
exhortation and the accused applicant aforesaid was not armed with
any weapon. It was also contended that exhortation is not so much
material in committing the triple murder by co accused Hemant
Kumar as is the law laid down by this court in the case of Ajay Kumar
2
Dubey vs. State of U.P. reported in 2003 (2) ACRR 1367 and by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Matadeen vs. State of Maharastra
reported in 1999 (1) ACRR (5) and further also in the case of
Dharmendra Chandu Lal Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2001
(43) ACC 294.
(4)In this second bail application, it is contended that accused is in jail
since 24.02.2009. Apart from this ground, there is a civil suit pending
in between the parties and a stay order in that suit was obtained by
the applicant side, therefore, there was no occasion to the accused to
kill the deceased persons. More so, the main role has been assigned
to Hemant Kumar the co-accused who opened the fire and due to
enmity, the entire family members of the applicant’s family have been
falsely implicated by the informant. The main accused Hemant Kumar
was arrested by the I.O. on the same day of the occurrence, while the
accused applicant aforesaid was arrested on the next day of the
occurrence.
(5)It is further submitted that co accused Yashwant and Pramod have
already been enlarged on bail in this case and the role of the
applicant and co-accused Yashwant and Pramod has been same and
therefore the applicant aforesaid is also entitled to be enlarged on bail
on the ground of parity.
(6)It is submitted on behalf of State that parity is no ground to enlarge
bail to the applicant, who is involved in a case of heinous nature of
committing the murder of three persons by the son of the applicant
and the applicant did not make any attempt even to stop his son
Hemant Kumar from killing the remaining two deceased Champa
3
Devi and Seema Devi who had come to rescue Mahendra Kumar, on
whom Hemant Kumar had opened fire after instigation of the accused
applicant aforesaid to this extent that accused applicant instigated his
son Hemant for taking the rifle and to shoot Mahendra, his mother
and wife who were present at the spot of occurrence due to some
altercations happening in between Mahendra the deceased and
Yashwant the other co-accused with regard to pelting stone on a
doge by the grandson of the complainant.
(7)In the light of the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through
the facts and circumstances on record. No doubt, co-accused
Pramod is enlarged on bail on 20.11.2009 by brother Judge Hon’ble
Ravindra Singh, J on this submission on behalf of accused Pramod
that the case of the applicant i.e. co accused Pramod is
distinguishable with the case of the co accused Ramanuj, the
accused applicant aforesaid and co accused Yashwant. The co-
accused Yashwant has also been enlarged on bail on 08.02.2010 by
brother Judge Hon’ble Srikant Tripathi, J. on this submission on
behalf of co accused Yashwant that co accused Pramod and Suresh,
who had firearms and had chased the informant thereby firing on him,
have already been enlarged on bail by Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.
(8)In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties for
the facts on record, I am of this view that the case against accused
applicant aforesaid Ramanuj does also rest on the same footing as
had been against the co-accused named Yashwant, therefore I do
find it expedient that the accused applicant aforesaid on bail on the
ground of parity.
4
(9) Therefore, this bail application is allowed.
(10) Let the accused-applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing his personal bond with two sureties, each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the
following conditions: –
1. That the accused shall attend and abide himself in accordance with
the conditions of the bond executed.
2. That the 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, and
3. That the 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 him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
Dt: 09.07.2010
Jaideep/-