Pradeep Kumar Dubey @ Sintu Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23502 of 2020

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Dubey @ Sintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This application has been entertained without an affidavit on account of the extraordinary contingency created by the Covid-19 pandemic where the travel is restricted. This Court notices a fact that there is a declaration by the applicant that he will file an affidavit. This order is being passed, therefore, subject to a certain condition in this regard.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Pradeep Kumar Dubey @ Sintu in connection with Case Crime No. 22 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 406 IPC, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the case is one that rests on circumstantial evidence. No one has seen the occurrence. The FIR was lodged after the deceased's body was discovered from a well. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of suspicion, assigning a motive to the applicant on account of some money owed to the deceased by the applicant on a business transaction. The applicant has been sought to be connected to the crime on the circumstance of last seen that has figured in the statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta under Section 161

¶9

Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said statement shows that Ashok Kumar Gupta has come up with the evidence of last seen on a heresay attributing 'last seen' to his sons Rahul Gupta and Deepak Gupta. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the Statement of Rahul Gupta and Deepak Gupta, there is no account of last seen except the suspicion. It is further argued that the applicant's name is next sought to be connected to the crime on an extra judicial confession of co-accused Ashish Kumar Dubey made to the police, where it is alleged that on the bidding of the applicant, co-accused Sohan Pasi @ Dharmendra shot the deceased to death. It is submitted that this statement by the accomplice, confessional in nature is no evidence unless corroborated It is next pointed out that on the pointing out of the applicant, a country made pistol has been shown to be recovered from an open place accessible to the public. There is no independent witness of the recovery, which is castigated as planted. It is argued that once the applicant did not shoot the deceased according to the prosecution itself but merely asked the co-accused Sohan Pasi @ Dharmendra, assignment of recovery of the weapon of the offence is ex facie bogus and illogical. It is also pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history except contemporaneous implication in an offence under the Arms Act, along with the present crime, and is in jail since18.01.2020.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case,

¶12

in particular, the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the fact that no one has seen the occurrence, the fact that prima facie the evidence of last seen is heresay, about which too there is no evidence, the fact that the applicant has been involved on the basis of suspicion alleging a motive, the fact that the applicant's name has been connected to the crime on the basis of statement of a co-accused on an extra judicial confession made to the police without corroboration, the fact that the recovery is assigned to the applicant from a public place, the fact that the applicant is not assigned the role of shooting but asking the co-accused Sohan Pasi, and that too, on the credit of the statement of a co-accused made in his confession, the fact that the recovery is from a public place, of which there is no independent witness, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant, Pradeep Kumar Dubey @ Sintu in connection with Case Crime No. 22 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 406 IPC, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court.

¶18

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶19

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(viii) 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. the fact that the applicant has no criminal history,

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶24

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent

¶25

conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

It is made clear that in case, an affidavit in support of this application duly sworn is not filed, as declared, within 15 days of resumption of swearing of affidavits, the bail granted to the applicant shall be cancelled.

¶27

Order Date :- 28.9.2020

¶28

Deepak

Pradeep Kumar Dubey @ Sintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Dubey @ Sintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apeksha Tripathi(Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ishika Saxena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Arti Pal @ Aisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheeraj Shahi @ Surya Pratap Shahi Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Alias Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Banty Singh Vs State of U.P.