Allowed

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2020BAIL/39582/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered bail for the applicant accused in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The court found it a fit case to release him on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions ensuring his presence in court for evidence, framing of charges, and statement recording under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions for presence in court and timely participation in trial proceedings including recording of Statement under S. 313 Cr.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39582 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Avanish Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in the matter arising out of FIR dated 15.07.2020, Case Crime No. 0273 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Wazeerganj, District - Budaun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by complainant Charan Singh about the death of his father Shreepal Singh and it was mentioned that father of the complainant had slept outside the house of complainant after taking his dinner in the night of 14/15-07-2020 and some unknown person had murdered the father of complainant by sharp-edged weapon. Report was lodged against unknown person. Initially, the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.07.2020 and he has reiterated the version of the First Information Report, however, later on, after three days of the incident in the second statement of the complainant recorded on 17.07.2020 the name of the present accused has surfaced. It was stated by the complainant that his father was done to death by accused Narendra Singh, father-in-law of the complainant in collusion with accused Surendra Singh and Tej Pal Sharma.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has surfaced in the statement of the complainant during the investigation and it has come to light in the investigation that the present accused was assigned the role of catching hold and other co-accused Narendra Singh had murdered the deceased. The learned counsel for applicant also submits that there is no direct evidence against the accused and there is no last seen evidence against the accused. Name of the present accused has surfaced due to suspicion in the confessional statement of co-

¶9

accused Narendra Singh which is not admissible in law. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of this accused. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 17.07.2020. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Shri Avanish Tripathi appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, also considering that the incident had taken placed in night and there is no direct evidence of the incident and there is no one who has last seen the accused in the company of the deceased or near the deceased, without commenting the merits of this case, this Court deems it a fit case to release the applicant on bail with condition that he will cooperate in the trial.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Surendra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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

(2). 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall

¶18

be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.11.2020 LBY

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Sadakat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sirajuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.

Vindesh Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Alias Manu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another