Allowed

Khajju Sharma Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2020BAIL/38360/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail pending trial to the applicant who was accused of murder and other offences under IPC, finding his implication based on suspicion and fragile circumstantial evidence. Bail granted with conditions regarding appearance, witness tampering, and illegal activities.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bond with two sureties subject to conditions of attendance, no tampering, and no illegal activities.

Khajju Sharma Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38360 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Khajju Sharma Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the applicant as Khajju Sharma in the memo of bail application.

¶6

Computer centre is also directed to correct the name of the applicant in its data base.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 156 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Khurja Dehat, district-Bulandshahar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

The first information report of the incident was lodged by the complainant against five persons including the present accused on 19.6.2019 at about 2:16 p.m. regarding the incident which had taken place on 17.6.2019 at about 5:00 p.m. and it was alleged in the FIR that on 17.6.2019 at about 5:00 p.m. Rakesh Khatik, son of Ajab Singh had called the brother of the complainant through mobile phone to his 'Gher', where other accused persons namely, Omvir, Jeetu and Sudhir were also present and since then the brother of the complainant Anil was missing.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the implication of the applicant in the present case is based upon suspicion and

¶11

circumstantial evidence which appears to be of a very fragile nature and does not constitute the complete chain to link the applicant with the commission of crime in question. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. He next submits that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of co-accused Rakesh Khatik, who in his confessional statement made before the police has assigned the role of catching hold the hands of the deceased to the present accused. Further submission is that the other co-accused Rakesh Khatik has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 24186 of 2020, copy of the bail order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. He lastly submits that the applicant, who is in jail since 20.6.2019 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶12

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶14

Let the applicant, Khajju Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶16

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶17

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶18

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.11.2020 Faridul

Khajju Sharma Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khajju Sharma Kumar 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

Vindesh Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Shah Mohmmad Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Vs State of U.P.

Ramkesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.