The Allahabad High Court has granted the bail application of Anupam Dubey, an accused in the famous Shamim Contractor murder case of Farrukhabad district.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajit Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Anupam Dubey.
By means of the application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C, P.S Kotwali Fatehgarh, district-Farrukhabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
As per prosecution case, the brother of the informant, Shamim Thekedar was executed to death by some unidentified miscreants on 26.7.1995. During investigation four persons, Rajendra @ Raju Langada, Kaushal Kishore, Laxmi Narain and Shishu @ Balkishan were nominated as accused in the case.
The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet only against co-accused Rajendra @ Raju Langada. The trial of co-accused Rajendra @ Raju Langada was commenced and results in his acquittal on 3.6.1999. The matter of the accused was referred to CBCID. The witnesses Mohd Idrees and Sarfaraz once nominated the accused in the commission of crime but both the witnesses in their statements recorded second time under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C have exonerated the accused but the police has filed chargesheet against the accused on 14.7.1999. Against that chargesheet the accused had moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C before the Court, in which further proceedings of the case were stayed by the Court order dated 19.8.1999 and the matter was finally decided while dismissing the application by order dated 27.11.1998.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that initially the first information report was lodged against unknown persons. Later on the name of the accused surfaced during investigation in the statements of witnesses Mohd Idrees and Sarfaraz. Neither the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C had nominated the accused in the crime in question nor they had stated even a single word against the accused during trial of co-accused Rajendra @ Raju Langada. On the basis of statements of above mentioned witnesses, the trial of co-accused Rajendra @ Raju Langada resulted in his acquittal on 3.6.1999.
Further submission is that now eye witness Mohd Idrees in the trial of the accused, has nominated the accused and other co-accused Rajendra @ Raju Langada, who was acquitted in the matter earlier. This witness further stated that he has not given any statement under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C in exonerating the accused. He also deposed before the trial court during trial that he has not given any statement of the co-accused Rajendra @ Raju Langada.
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that at one point of time and at another point of time the witness Mohd Idrees was saying different versions, which is a bundle of lies and a product of malice, which is totally untrustworthy. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 14.7.2021, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
Hemendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the informant as well as A.G.A have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that when the previous statements of the witnesses were recorded then the accused was outside jail and due to fear the witnesses could not have deposed truthfully now he has given his statement without fear as the accused was in jail. They also submitted that the applicant has a long criminal history of 46 cases, out of which, seven cases are of heinous nature.
In reply, counsel for the applicant submitted that he has properly explained the criminal history in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. In 41 cases either the applicant has been acquitted or the final report has been submitted and at present only 3 cases are pending against the applicant, including present case. Two other cases were wrongly and falsely slapped against the applicant after his surrender in the matter.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of the counsel for the parties, considering the period of detention in jail, considering the statements of witnesses, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant, Anupam Dubey be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him.
(b) The applicant 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.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.