Krishnpal@ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36174 of 2020

Applicant :- Krishnpal @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madhava Nand Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application filed on behalf of Krishnpal @ Kallu seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No.102 of 2020, u/s 147, 323, 304, 504, 336 I.P.C., P.S.-Bhaurakalan, District-Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the F.I.R. was registered by one Priya on 25.5.2020 u/s 147 and 323 I.P.C. against as many as eight named accused persons including the name of present applicant Krishnpal @ Kallu. Thereafter, in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the informant has tailored an story and stated that the named accused persons have assaulted by lathi-danda and pelting stones. In this transaction, one Anuj, Uttam and Baldev Singh are said to have sustained injuries and later on injured Baldev Singh, who was aged about 65 years and has sustained a solitary head injury, has died during treatment. The postmortem report shows that the case of death is due to ante mortem head injury, which could be caused by pelting stone. Under circumstances where all the accused persons have been attributed a general and omnibus role of assaulting, it is not possible to ascertain as to who is the author of deadly assault made upon the head of the deceased. It is further contended that the injured persons in their respective statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. too have supported the same version of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that there is no recovery of any incriminating material on the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 13.6.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex

¶10

Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Krishnpal @ Kallu, who is involved in aforementioned Case Crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the 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

¶16

WITH LAW.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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 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

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.11.2020 M. Kumar

Krishnpal@ Kallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnpal@ Kallu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jeet Vs State of U.P.

Smt Shripati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dharm Pal Vs State of U.P.

Laxmina Vs State of U.P.