Allowed

Ganesh Prasad Agrahari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020BAIL/4599/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, this court granted release to the applicant, noting that multiple pending cases involve the same deceased but different accused persons, describing the applicant as deserving of bail in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail pending trial by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Ganesh Prasad Agrahari Vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4599 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ganesh Prasad Agrahari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari,Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri B.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ganesh Prasad Agrahari seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with complaint case no.7370 of 2008 (Satish Chand Gupta vs. Smt. Ganesh Prasad), under Sections 302 and 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that on 17.04.2017 a first information report was lodged by the applicant himself, which was registered as case crime no.188 of 2007, under Section 306 I.P.C. at police station Sigra, District Varanasi against Manoj Gupta, Pintoo Gupta and Brij Mohan Gupta which relates to the death of one Pramod Kumar Gupta, who was his brother-in-law (Jija). After the post mortem examination case was converted under Section 304 I.P.C. and chargesheet has been filed against three named accused persons, which is pending in the trial court. Subsequently another first

¶8

information report was registered on 29.05.2007 by Smt. Murahi Devi, the mother of Satish Chandra Gupta @ Manoj, which was registered as case crime no.188 A of 2007, under Sections 302 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi against Smt. Reena Gupta alias Nanhi, present applicant-Ganesh Prasad Agrahari and Sushil Kumar Modi on the basis of a complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which also pertains to the death of the same person i.e. Pramod Kumar Gupta. After investigation a final report was submitted by the police on 02.06.2007 in case crime no.188 A of 2007. A protest petition was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi wherein the final report was rejected and the matter was sent for further investigation vide order dated 07.03.2008. In the meantime Satish Chand Gupta alias Manoj, opposite party no.2 in the present application, who is an accused in case crime no.188 of 2007, filed a complaint under Section 302/120-B I.P.C. against Reena Gupta alias Nanhi, present applicant-Ganesh Prasad Agrahari and Sushil Kumar Modi which also relates to the death of same person i.e. Pramod Kumar Gupta. Subsequently in case crime no.188 of 2007 after further investigation a final report was again submitted on 22.07.2009 to which at belated stage i.e. on 21.05.2012 first informant Smt. Murahi Devi has filed a protest petition which vide order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi has been directed to be treated as a complaint and enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is pending before the court below. The said case is now numbered as criminal complaint case no.4781

¶9

of 2017, (Smt.Murahi Devi vs. Reena Gupta alias Nanhi and others) and is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi which also seized with the complaint as filed by Satish Chand Gupta alias Manoj. During the pendency of the complaint case no.4781 of 2017 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi passed an order dated 24.07.2017 summoning Reena Gupta alias Nanhi, present applicant-Ganesh Prasad Agrahari and Sushil Kumar Modi in complaint case no.7370 of 2008 initiated by the opposite party no.2 of the present bail application. The applicant and Smt. Reena Gupta alias Nanhi then filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court being Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.No.21825 of 2018, Reena Gupta alias Nanhi and another vs. State of U.P. and another in which this Court vide order dated 27.06.2018 directed that further proceedings of complaint case No.7370 of 2008 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and the coercive process issued vide order dated 05.05.2018 shall remain stayed in respect of the applicants. Copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. Subsequently the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi vide order dated 06.09.2019 issued summons against the applicant following the directions of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2018) SCC on line SC 310 and later on vide order dated 09.10.2019 issued non bailable warrant against the applicant. Pursuant to the issuance of N.B.W. dated 09.10.2019 the applicant was arrested on 18.11.2019 in the said complaint case and is

¶10

since then in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant then proceeded to argue that in the murder of Pramod Kumar Gupta as of now three proceedings are pending in which two proceedings i.e. complaint case no.7370 of 2008 and complaint case no.4781 of 2017. The set of accused persons are the same but in case crime no.188 of 2007 accused persons are completely different against whom chargesheet has been filed under Section 304 I.P.C. after thorough investigation. Even charges against three persons have been framed by the trial court vide order dated 13.10.2010 under Section 304 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in the said case being S.T. No.399 of 2009 which is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Court No.1, Varanasi. Learned counsel for the applicant then argued that the applicant is entitled for bail at this stage.

¶11

He further argued that the applicant is in jail since 29.11.2019 and has no criminal antecedents, therefore, he be released on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that the F.I.R. as case crime no.188 of 2007 was got registered by the applicant with ulterior motive just to save his skin but does not dispute the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Looking the facts and circumstances of the case wherein for the murder of one person two different set of accused have been implicated and all the matters are pending before the concerned court and as such the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Ganesh Prasad Agrahari be released on

¶15

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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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

¶21

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 229-A IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.2.2020

¶26

Asha

¶27

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Ganesh Prasad Agrahari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Prasad Agrahari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachcha Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nasaruddin Alias Rahisuddin Vs State of U.P.

Sarwar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jeetu Vs State of U.P.

Kaku Alias Parikshit Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Sameer @ Pahalwan Vs State of U.P.