JUDGMENT

Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State, Mohammad Afzal, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 11.06.2022 at about 08:30 to 09:00 P.M. after receiving the call by son namely, Shivam Sharma on his mobile, his son had gone out, thereafter at about 10:51 P.M. the informant received call from Rohit Nagar, that his son has met with an accident at the farm house situated at Chhoti Nahar, who was taken to hospital, thereafter was declared dead.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was registered against unknown person. Applicant's name surfaced in the statement of the Aniket Kumar, the sole eye-witness of the incident.- He further submits that the eye-witness Aniket Kumar has stated that on 11.06.2022 at about 09:00 P.M. he was going to his sister's house on the way, he heard the noise of gun shot from the parked Wagon-R vehicle and when he went to see, he saw that Atul, who is resident of Kanawani, was trying to run away, further he saw that Shivam Sharma sustained gun shot, thereafter, he ran to his village and informed the police. Learned counsel submits that the sole eye-witness of the incident is Aniket Kumar, who had stated that the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 09:00 A.M. whereas, in the F.I.R. it has been stated that at about 10:51 P.M., the informant was informed that his son met with an accident, thus the prosecution story became doubtful. He next submits that no incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and that the alleged recovery which is is said to have been made is false and planted one by the police. Learned counsel has next argued that no identification test parade has been concluded and that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the ground of suspicion, being friend of the deceased. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also 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. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2022, having no criminal history.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

6. Let applicant Atul involved in Case Crime No.733 of 2022 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

I. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on