Allowed

Kuldeep Singh @ Bablu Baba v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020BAIL/31680/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a Single Bench in a bail application held that the applicant made out a case for bail in a murder case where the FIR was against unknown persons, he was named days later, and there was no forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to execution of personal bond and specific undertakings to attend court proceedings.

Kuldeep Singh @ Bablu Baba Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31680 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh @ Bablu Baba Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajpal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.108 of 2020, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station-Thariyaon, District-Fatehpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the informant has lodged the FIR against unknown persons for alleged killing of Shiv Shanker. For the first time, name of the applicant figured up after 19 days of the incident in the statement of Jitendra whereby tangent remark was made by him. It is just possible that applicant might be involved in the present case. Except this, there is no allegation against the applicant. On the same day, the police has recovered illegal weapon and it is alleged that it is the same weapon which is used in the commission of offence. But fact remains that weapon has not been sent for any forensic examination corroborating the use of the weapon in the commission of offence. There is no ocular testimony of the entire incident and name of the applicant figured up after 19 days of the incident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.06.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Kuldeep Singh@Bablu Baba , who is involved in case crime no.108 of 2020, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station-Thariyaon, District-Fatehpur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the

¶11

like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶13

(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 IPC.

¶14

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with

¶20

emergent condition-:

¶21

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

4. 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Sumit S

Kuldeep Singh @ Bablu Baba v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh @ Bablu Baba 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay @ Bhullan Vs State of U.P.

Shivank Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Rohan Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.