Bachcha Singh Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3876 of 2020

Applicant :- Bachcha Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Bachcha Singh seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 302, 393, 120B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Taryasujan, District Kushinagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution case as alleged in the first information report is that on 11.4.2019 Tarkeshwar Gupta son of the first informant, who was working in the shop of country made liquor, was returning on his motorcycle along with the money of sale of liquor of a day and at about 10:00 P.M. some unknown persons snatched his bag and on opposing the same, he was assaulted with knives by the said people. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on information, the informant along with many villagers took his son to the CHC, Tamkuhi from where he was referred to the district hospital from where again he was further referred to the Medical College, Gorakhpur and on reaching the Medical College, the doctor declared him dead. Subsequently, the first information report was lodged. He further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The police informer on 16.4.2019 informed the police that there is a whisper of some persons being involved in the matter but even then the applicant was not named but Mukesh, Ravi and Ramesh Maddheshia were named by him. He further argued that as per CD-8 dated 27.5.2019 Annexure-7 to the affidavit, the statement of Vijay Tiwari was recorded wherein he has categorically given the role of conspiracy to the applicant along with other accused persons. He next argues that subsequently, co-accused Brij Mohan was arrested and the name of the applicant surfaced in the confessional statement of Brij Mohan. Lastly, he argues that except of the aforesaid evidence, there is no other evidence whatsoever to implicate the applicant in the present case and there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from

¶8

the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The deceased Tarkeshwar Gupta as per the postmortem report has received three incised wound but there is no evidence whatsoever as to who was the author of the three injuries. The applicant is in jail since 20.11.2019 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit, therefore, he be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail but could not dispute the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, without further any comments on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Bachcha Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.

¶16

(V) 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

¶17

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.2.2020

¶22

AKK

¶23

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Bachcha Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachcha Singh 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

Mauji @ Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jattan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P.

Nasaruddin Alias Rahisuddin Vs State of U.P.

Sarwar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.