This bail application was dismissed in part. The Court found it a fit case to grant bail to the applicant, charged with murder and revenge, after reviewing the FIR inconsistencies and prior bail grants to co-accused.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4337 of 2019
Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Sahu @ Bhure @ Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is not named in F.I.R. which has been lodged by Pramod Kumar father of deceased Varun upon information given by Anuj Kumar Verma who was accompanying deceased at the time of incident in which firearm injuries were caused to him on 11.4.2016 and on account of which he succumbed to his injuries in Medical College, Lucknow on 14.4.2016; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 16.4.2016 deceased was having litigation with his wife and on 11.4.2016 after attending the date in Civil Courts at Orai he was called by his wife at home for compromise talks and during compromise talks he was abused and beaten by named accused persons viz., his wife, two brothers-in-law and father-in-law and at that time he was accompanied with Anuj Kumar who intervened and he along with Anuj Kumar left for his home and when they were passing through Kookergoan bridge at about 9.00 p.m. his brothersin-law Yogendra and Jitendra overtook them by another motorcycle and after getting the motorcycle of Varun stopped, fired at Varun and incident was seen by Anuj Kumar and injured was taken to district hospital Orai from where he was referred to Kanpur and from Kanpur referred to Lucknow Medical College where he died on 14.4.2016, whereafter F.I.R. was lodged; that from averments made in F.I.R. it is clear that first informant was not an eye witness of incident; that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. first informant has stated that he lodged F.I.R. upon information given by Anuj Kumar and Anuj Kumar in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 18.4.2016 by way of improvements changed entire prosecution story by stating that
the incident was a case of road rage when another motorcycle slightly dashed with motorcycle of Varun following which scuffle and marpeet took place between Varun and other motorcyclist Shiv Kumar and Dilip Rajpoot and after some time applicant and Dilip Rajpoot overtaken motorcycle of Varun and upon exhortation by Dilip Rajpoot applicant fired at Varun; that applicant was apprehended with other accused persons in policy party no injury encounter case crime no.430 of 2016 on 24.4.2016 with recovery of unauthorized firearms etc. and confessional statement of all accused with regard to several cases was recorded following which on 25.4.2016 recovery of I.D. card of deceased, weapon of crime with empty cartridge and shirt of applicant were made at the pointing of applicant of which there is no independent witness; that it is absolutely wrong to say that any accident or scuffle did take place between motorcycle of applicant and deceased on 11.4.2016; that it is also wrong to say that due to above reasons applicant caused firearm injury to deceased; that accused persons named in F.I.R. Devi Deen, Hemlata, Jitendra and Yogendra as well as Dilip Rajpoot who is alleged to be accompanied with applicant in the incident, have been granted bail by other Benches of this Court vide orders dated 15.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 30.03.2018, 30.03.2018 and 13.03.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5555 of 2018, 6460 of 2018, 11441 of 2018 and 9078 of 2018, copies of which have been produced for perusal and are taken on record; that applicant is not a previous convict and has no criminal case to his credit prior to this case; that subsequent to F.I.R. of this case after his arrest on 24.4.2018 in police party no injury encounter case he has been falsely implicated in several cases; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 24.04.2016.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment; grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at
this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Shiv Kumar Sahu @ Bhure @ Ankit be released on bail in Case Crime No.410 of 2016, under Sections 302, 504 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 31.1.2019
VS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail under the circumstances of the case.
Whether the severity of the punishment and complicity of the accused preclude bail.
What conditions must be imposed to safeguard the interests of justice while granting bail.
8 provisions across 2 enactments
Shiv Kumar Sahu @ Bhure @ Ankit
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
