Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2020BAIL/3919/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court granted bail to an applicant accused of murder with other offences, imposing standard conditions including appearance in court and prohibition on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3919 of 2020

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Phool Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Manoj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 256 of 2017, under Sections 302, 506, 34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Rasolabad, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

According to the version as per the F.I.R the same was lodged on 06.06.2017 at about 12:30 p.m. for an incident alleged to have taken place on 28.05.2017 in which Kaushal Kishore is alleged to have died. The post mortem report reveals five injuries in the body of the deceased but the cause of death as opined by the doctor is hanging. In the F.I.R five persons apart from the applicant were named as accused but after investigation the name of the accused persons was exonerated and six persons were nominated who are Meena Devi, Mewa Lal, Manoj (the present applicant), Ram Khilawan, Sukhwasi and Tulsi Ram. It was found that there is an illicit relation between the deceased Kaushal Kishore and accused Meena Devi which is the reason for the present murder.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused persons namely Mewa Lal, Ram Khilawan, Sukhwasi and Tulsiram have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.10.2019, 13.03.2019, 29.03.2019 and 21.05.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 43369 of 2019, 10864 of 2019, 12899 of 2019 and 21222 of 2019 and the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with that of the co-accused. He further argued that the name of the applicant has surfaced after one year and two months of the incident which is an after thought and the present case is of false implication after consultation and tutoring cannot be ruled out. He further argued that there is no eye witness to the incident. The applicant is in jail since 30.10.2019 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A could not dispute the arguments as

¶10

raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant, Manoj Kumar , 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 liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the

¶19

conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakeel Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Payasi Vs State of U.P.

Mauji @ Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jattan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P.