Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Chaudhary, assisted by Shri Govind Singh Bot, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sanjay Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The applicant, Prithvipal Singh, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 167 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case due to property dispute and partyandi, he is aged about 70 years and is suffering from several diseases. The applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident and he was out of village for his treatment. The entire prosecution story has been lodged with malafide intention to create pressure on the applicant so that property dispute matter which is pending before the court of Munsif/ Civil Judge, Gonda, bearing Misc. Case No. 18/25 of 1995 between the family members of applicant and the grand father of the deceased and his family members be compromised and settled, and in respect of some other property also other civil and criminal cases are pending between both the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that according to the first information report, the prosecution story is that the brother of the complainant, namely, Ashish Shukla, who used to do the work of Guarantee Period Field Service in Bajaj Company, was called by the accused Jai Karan Singh (nephew of the applicant), on some pretext to his house on 15.05.2022 at 5:00 p.m. and thereafter the accused persons committed his murder and concealed his dead body in a room of their house. At about 7:30 p.m., when one villager namely, Rakesh Kumar, who was returning from his field, saw the applicant in nervous condition, he asked him about his nervousness, then applicant told him by hesitating that his son is ill. On his reply and having some doubt, when Rakesh Kumar looked inside the house of accused persons then he saw the accused persons were hiding a dead body under the bed in the room. It is also alleged that after identifying the deceased, when Rakesh Kumar informed the family members of the deceased and the complainant, then many people of the family of the deceased and other villagers reached at the house of accused persons and found the dead body of the deceased, thereafter, the deceased was taken to the a medical clinic of Dr. Sharda Prasad, immediately, where it was told that he had died a long time ago.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been roped in the case by the complainant and his family members with the connivance of police as well as of political rivals of applicant and his family members due to ulterior motive and previous enmity of civil dispute. The applicant has neither concern with the death of the deceased nor such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that real fact is that brother of complainant, Ashish Shukla, the deceased, was involved in several anti social activities and was a bad character man, he was found lying unconscious on the road by the villagers. When the villagers informed the complainant and his family members about it then the complainant and his family members reached there and they brought him to the doctor, who after his medical check up declared him dead. Thereafter, information of death of deceased was given to the police by the complainant and on his information inquest report of the deceased was prepared by the police on 16.05.2022, and as per inquest report only two injuries were found on the person of the deceased, i.e., (i) mark of burn on left palm; and (ii) mark of burn beside little finger of left leg. Copy of inquest report has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after inquest proceedings postmortem of the deceased was conducted on the same day, wherein five injuries were found, which are as under:

(i) contused swelling 7.0 x 5.0 c.m. in front of neck 3.0 c.m. below chin.

(ii) abrasion 1 x 0.5 c.m. over left palm.

(iii) contusion 2.0 x 1.0 c.m. over left elbow.

(iv) contusion 4.0 x 1.0 c.m. over lateral aspect if left side chest 15.0 c.m. below axilla.

(v) a contusion 5.0 x 4.0 c.m. parietal region 15.0 c.m. above right eyebrow.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of inquest there were only two simple injuries, one on the left palm and another left leg finger, but in the postmortem report five injuries were found, which also creates doubt about the prosecution case.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after postmortem proceedings cremation of deceased was conducted by the complainant and his family members, and with the connivance of police personnel and political rivals of applicant and his family members managed false implication of applicant and his nephews in the present case by way of lodging a totally false and fabricated first information report, taking undue benefits of the deceased for settling the aforesaid previous enmity of land dispute with the applicant and his family members.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is neither any independent eye witness of the alleged crime, nor any witness has seen that the applicant is causing murder of the deceased, nor anyone has seen that applicant and his two nephews, namely, Jaikaran Singh and Sanjay Singh are committing murder of the deceased.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that F.I.R. was lodged after 25 hours, which too without any proper and plausible explanation of delay, whereas the distance between the place of occurrence and police station is only 12 kilometres.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.c., in which he has repeated almost same version of the first information report. The complainant is not the eye witness and the entire story has been cooked up on the averments made by one witness, namely, Rakesh Kumar. As per the statement of Rakesh Kumar, while he was returning from his agricultural field he saw that applicant was appearing in nervous condition, then he asked him about his nervousness, then applicant told him by hesitating that his son is ill, and on his reply on having some doubt, when Rakesh Kumar looked inside the house of accused persons then he saw the accused persons were hiding a dead body under the bed in the room. There is contradiction in the statement of Rakesh Kumar, whereas in earlier part of his statement he states that applicant met him outside the house near agricultural field and in later part of his statement he states that applicant along with his nephews were hiding dead body of the deceased under the bed in the room. Thus, statement of Rakesh Kumar is unbelievable and misconceived. This fact has been clearly stated in para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

13. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in site plan prepared by the police, witness Rakesh Kumar has not been shown as to from where he had seen that accused persons were hiding the dead body of the deceased. Thus, the story developed by the witness, Rakesh Kumar, also falsifies the prosecution case.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that complainant and his family members with the connivance of police personnel and political rivals of applicant, have got recorded false statements of alleged eye witness, Rakesh Kumar. Other witnesses, namely, Janki Nath Shukla, Shesh Narayan Shukla, Jitendra Shukla and Vijay Shukla in their statements have stated the same version as of Rakesh Kumar but they are not the eye witness of the crime or have seen the applicant committing murder, whereas, the alleged eye witness, Rakesh Kumar in his statement has stated that while he was returning from his agricultural field he saw that applicant was appearing in nervous condition, then he asked him about his nervousness, then applicant told him by hesitating that his son is ill, and on his reply on having some doubt, when Rakesh Kumar looked inside the house of accused persons then he saw the accused persons were hiding a dead body under the bed in the room. Thus, there are various contradictions in the statements of alleged eye witness, Rakesh Kumar, itself and also the other witnesses.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is not the owner and resident of alleged house, whereas, as per the complainant and other witnesses the dead body was seen hiding by the applicant and his nephews. The applicant is residing in another house in the same village, he is an unmarried and old person aged about 70 years, and has no motive to kill the deceased.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that civil and criminal litigations are pending since 1995 between the family members of applicant's side and between the family members of deceased, and only to create pressure for compromise and settlement, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

17. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that nothing incriminating evidence is found during the course of investigation against the applicant. There is no eye witness of the the alleged crime, even the complainant has not seen that applicant is committing murder of the deceased, nor the alleged eye witness, Rakesh Kumar, has seen that applicant has causing murder of the deceased, nor any witnesses have seen that applicant is committing murder of the deceased. The entire prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178 has argued that none of the aforesaid alleged witnesses are the eye witness of the incident, and no one had seen the commission of crime, there is no connecting link to indicate the involvement of applicant in the commission of crime, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the applicant in the present crime.

19. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there are vast contradictions in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of all the witnesses, which also falsifies the prosecution case. The applicant has not been assigned any specific role by any of the witnesses for murder of the deceased.

20. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and property dispute and there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him in the present crime, therefore, bail application of the applicant may be considered sympathetically by this Court and he should be released on bail.

21. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, which fact has been stated in para-28 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 18.05.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is blinking chance of an early conclusion of trial.

22. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is involved in a case of murder, therefore, his bail application may be rejected.

23. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence; considering the fact that at the time of inquest there were only two simple injuries, one on the left palm and another left leg finger, but in the postmortem report five injuries were found, which creates doubt about the prosecution case; there is neither any independent eye witness of the alleged crime, nor any witness has seen that the applicant is causing murder of the deceased, nor anyone has seen that applicant and his two nephews, namely, Jaikaran Singh and Sanjay Singh are committing murder of the deceased; complainant is not the eye witness and the entire story has been cooked up on the averments made by one witness, namely, Rakesh Kumar, whereas, there is contradiction in the statement of Rakesh Kumar, as in earlier part of his statement he states that applicant met him outside the house near agricultural field and in later part of his statement he states that applicant along with his nephews were hiding dead body of the deceased under the bed in their house, thus statement of Rakesh Kumar is unbelievable and misconceived; in site plan prepared by the police, witness Rakesh Kumar has not been shown as to from where he had seen that accused persons were hiding the dead body of the deceased, thus, the story developed by the witness, Rakesh Kumar, also falsifies the prosecution case; there are various contradictions in the statements of alleged eye witness, Rakesh Kumar, itself and also the other witnesses; there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that civil and criminal litigations are pending since 1995 between the family members of applicant's side and between the family members of deceased, and only to create pressure for compromise and settlement the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no eye witness of the alleged crime, even the complainant has not seen that applicant is committing murder of the deceased, nor the alleged eye witness, Rakesh Kumar, has seen that applicant has causing murder of the deceased, nor any witnesses have seen that applicant is committing murder of the deceased thus the entire prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence; applicant has not been assigned any specific role by any of the witnesses for murder of the deceased; further there appears force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and property dispute; as well as further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, [LQ/SC/2018/152] this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

24. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

25. Let the applicant, Prithvipal Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 167 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

26. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

27. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.