Allowed

Anek Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020BAIL/12562/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant charged with abduction and murder of a deceased person. It found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken due to the significant time gap between the last seen evidence and the recovery of the body.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions including no criminal activity and no tampering with evidence.

Anek Pal Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12562 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anek Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Naresh Kumar Singh,Deepak Rana,Lav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant(s), Anek Pal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 32 of 2016, S.T. No. 159 of 2016, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. P.S.- Pikhuwa, District- Hapur.

¶7

In brief, the FIR version is that the informant lodged a report of missing of his brother Raj Kamal @ Rajesh with the police station Pikhuwa, District Hapur on 12.1.2016. One Gajendra Singh son of Bharat Singh and Deepak son of Om Prakash had told the informant that on 9.1.2016 at 9:30 PM, Raj Kamal was seen by them along with Anek Pal and his wife Bijnesh and since then, the phone of Raj Kamal was switched off. He had doubt that Anek Pal and his wife Bijnesh had abducted his brother Raj Kamal and also committed murder of him. His brother Raj Kamal had illicit relation with Bijnesh. On this written information, a Case Crime No. 32 of 2016 was registered against Anek Pal and his wife Bijnesh at Police Station Pikhuwa, District Hapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per FIR, two witnesses, namely, Gajendra Singh and Deepak Kumar are the witnesses of last seen. Both these witnesses had seen deceased along with accused Anek Pal and his wife Bijnesh on 9.1.2016 at 9 O'clock in the night.

¶9

Moreover, Sudhir Kumar and Jitendra Singh are also the witness of last seen who had stated in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that they had seen deceased along with Anek Pal and his wife Bijnesh on 9.1.2016 at 9:30 P.M.

¶10

The next circumstantial evidence is the extra judicial confession of Ram Kishan @ Pappu in which he had confessed that

¶11

deceased had illicit relation with the wife of Anek Pal and due to this animosity, accused Anek Pal along with his companions had committed murder of Raj Kamal @ Rajesh.

¶12

The dead body was recovered on 21.1.2016 and the inquest report and post mortem report, both were conducted on the very same day. Post Mortem report is Annexur-9 of the affidavit in which cause of death is mentioned due to Ante Mortem Head injury and time of death is mentioned 2-4 days.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the time gap between the last seen evidence and recovery of dead body is not supported with the medical evidence.

¶14

The last seen witnesses are Gajendra and Deepak Kumar both had seen the deceased along with the accused persons on 9.1.2016 at 9 O'clock in the night, while Jitendra Singh and Sudhir Kumar both also had seen deceased along with accused persons on 9.1.2016 at 9:30 PM. The dead body was recovered on 21.1.2016. As per the autopsy report, the death was caused 2-4 days ago from the date of conducting the post mortem report i.e. 21.1.2016. As such, in the chain of circumstantial evidence, there is a long gap from the last seen evidence 9.1.2016 and date of occurrence is may be as per autopsy report 17-19.1.2016. As the link in chain of circumstantial evidence being missing.

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶16

Let applicant(s), Anek Pal , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(i) The applicant(s) shall not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶18

(ii) The applicant(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶19

(iii) The applicant(s) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

(iv) The applicant(s) shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is given to the trial court to cancel the bail of the applicant(s) without any reference to this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Ravi Prakash

Anek Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anek Pal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvesh Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Omi Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Ajay and Another Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Udai Hind@Kariya Vs State of U.P.