Read Time: 12 minutes

The Allahabad High court recently allowed enlargement on bail to an applicant under trial in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 1600 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C.

“it is apparent that first information report has been lodged against unknown persons. The name of the applicant has surfaced for the first time after 20 days of the incident that too on the basis of hearsay evidence. The next evidence coming forward is confessional statement of the applicant, which is inadmissible piece of evidence.” – observed the Bench

The Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal who allowed the enlargement on bail further observed that,

“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.”

The facts of the present case stated that the applicant (Jitendra Tyagi) has been in jail since 18.11.2020, when after Abhishek Tyagi son of the deceased Naresh Tyagi filed FIR against two unknown persons, who are alleged to have shot his father. Subsequently, the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first information was recorded in which the first informant does not name any accused but proceeded to state that although his father was a contractor, but he had no animosity with any one. It is further stated that, after about 20 days of the said incident one Pankaj Tyagi was interrogated by the Investigating Officer on 29.10.2020 who for the first time disclosed that he was getting the marriage of his daughter and on the phone he was talking to his son-in-law Mr. Bheem, who informed him that Jitendra Tyagi, the present applicant who is his brother-in-law has committed the murder, on which for the first time the name of the applicant has surfaced.

The Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that the police gave a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to Vinod Tyagi brother of the applicant on which he along with applicant went to the police station wherein the confessional statement of the applicant was recorded and then the applicant has been apprehended. It is argued that there is no recovery either on the pointing out or possession of the applicant of any incriminating material whatsoever.

He further argued that, “the applicant has been falsely implicated and there is no credible evidence against him. It is further argued that applicant has no motive whatsoever to commit the offence, as is itself evident from the statement of the son of deceased, who has stated that his father had no animosity with any one. It is argued that the police just in order to show good work, has implicated the applicant in the present case. It is argued that applicant is in jail since 18.11.2020.”

On the contrary the learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although the applicant is named in the first information report, but his name has been disclosed for the first time in the statement of Pankaj Tyagi, who got an information through Mr. Bheem. He further stated that, “apart from the said three cases there are four other cases against the applicant, but learned AGA states that other cases are petty cases and old cases ranging from the year 2013-17 but there are no new and fresh cases to show the involvement of the applicant in recent time. It is argued that there is confessional statement of the applicant of committing the aforesaid offence. It is argued that prayer for bail be rejected.”

However, after taking into account the factual matrix of the present case the bench observed that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant and thus imposed conditions in the interest of justice to be followed by the applicant –

1. The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5.  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.
6. 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.

Case title – Jitendra Tyagi v. State of UP