Allowed

Mukul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019BAIL/29447/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a crime involving Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 IPC. The applicant faces charges of murder and affray stemming from a road dispute. Upon hearing submissions, the judgment rules in favor of the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties with specific conditions of appearance and undertaking against adjournments.

Mukul Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29447 of 2019 Applicant :- Mukul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant as well as counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Court today are taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajeev Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Lalji Maurya, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant -Mukul with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 159 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police StationChhajlet, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶6

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report has been lodged on 16th June, 2019 by Khempal Singh against five named accused persons including the applicant and one unknown accused person alleging therein that on 15th June, 2019 on the day, the road leading from Samadpur to Chaura was paved. On one side of that road are the fields of Devendra and Aarpit, whereas on the other side are the fields of the applicant, Ved Prakash and others. Devendra and Arpit wanted to construct the said road from some part of the land of the applicant, while the road was constructed on its earlier place. Because of the same, at 11:00 p.m. (night) all the accused persons having gun, rifle and country-made pistols, came by tractor and car and they started destroying the said road, at that time the informant, his wife and one Ramphal were working on their tube-well. When the informant objected not to destroy the same, they started abusing them and opening fire. Thereafter on the instigation of coaccused Devendra, Aman and Pushpendra, with intention to kill them, due to which the bullet fired by Aman hit the wife of the informant Yogesh Devi and the bullet fired by Pushpendra hit Ramphal due to which they sustained fire arm injuries. In the statements of the both the injured, except some variations, they have reiterated the same version as unfolded in the first information report. Specific role of causing injuries to injured Yogesh Devi has been assigned to Aman, whereas the specific role of causing injuries to the injured Ram Phal has been assigned to Pushpendra. No role of causing injuries to the injured has been assigned to the applicant. Therefore, the case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from the co-accused, Aman and Pushpendra. It has further been argued by the learned counsel the applicant that due to dispute regarding construction of a road, there was quarrel between the informant's side and applicant's side and by chance, the injured have caused fire arm injuries. The said incident is not deliberate and intentional. The applicant is innocent and has been

¶7

falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.The applicant is in jail since 17th June, 2019.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) 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. 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.

¶13

(iv) 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 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.

¶14

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 13.8.2019

¶16

Sushil/-

Mukul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajaram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Ankit @ Sonu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Dharmnarain Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Vishal @ Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P.