Allowed

Titu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2020BAIL/47333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to two applicants accused under Sections 302 and 307 IPC in a double murder case. The court found it a fit case for bail at that stage, adhering to conditions including furnishing sureties and cooperating with the trial without commenting on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail subject to personal bond, two heavy sureties, and conditions regarding cooperation with trial and no tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47333 of 2018 Applicant :- Titu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naseer Ahmad,Nazrul Islam Jafri,Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

and

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49220 of 2017 Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri,Mohd. Naseer Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alkesh Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

No one present for first informant.

¶7

Two supplementary affidavits filed by learned counsel for applicants taken on record.

¶8

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S.I. Jafri learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in ante timed F.I.R.; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Jogender, he along with his wife and parents were cutting fodder in his fields at about 9.00 a.m. on 10.7.2017 when applicants along with 8 others (total 7 named and 3 unnamed) arrived and after surrounding them started indiscriminate firing, resulting in death of his parents Shri Prem Singh and Smt. Munesh at the spot while he and his wife fled away and saved their lives, while assailants chased them with firing and first informant and his wife after reaching their home shut their door; that in Form-13 at A-7 the time of submission of F.I.R. is not mentioned which indicates that F.I.R. is ante timed and has been lodged with false and concocted story upon deliberations; that first informant Jogender was involved in murder of Dharam Singh the father of co-accused Sonu and if at all the applicants and their associates may have motive against him and may not have any motive against his

¶10

parents; that it is highly improbable that 10 persons having motive against first informant after surrounding the first informant and his parents, caused death of his parents and let first informant escaped unhurt; that the statement of another eye witness of F.I.R. Smt. Shivani the wife of first informant has been recorded after a period of one month of lodging of F.I.R. and of one more witness Veer Singh has been recorded on 19.8.2017 with inordinate delay; that in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the first informant, his wife and Veer Singh have made a different story by stating that at the time of incident they were going in Bhaisa Buggi (buffalo cart) as against the contention of cutting fodder in fields in F.I.R.; that either upon surrounding of first informant, his wife and parents in fields during cutting of fodder or at the time when they were going by Buffalo cart ( Bhaisa Buggi) it is impossible that two persons will die upon sustaining multiple fire arm injuries and two persons, first informant and his wife remain unhurt; that first informant is not alleged to have sustained even single injury so his presence on the spot is highly doubtful; that eye witness Veer Singh during trial in his statement as P.W.-2 has not supported prosecution case and has been declared hostile, as per copy of his statement at SA-1; that entire prosecution story is false and first informant and his wife have failed to show themselves to be eye witnesses of the incident; that applicants or his associates having strong motive against first informant had no reason to spare him and cause death of his parents against whom they had no motive; that death of parents of first informant appears to have been committed by some unknown persons and since the miscreants could not be identified, the applicants have been falsely implicated on account of enmity for implication of first informant as in the case of murder of his father of co-accused Sonu; that applicants have not been assigned any specific role of causing fire arm injury to any of the two deceased and may not be considered to be author of their injuries; that applicants did not commit the offence in question; that applicants have no previous criminal history; that applicants undertake that they will not make misuse liberty of bail; that applicant Titu is in custody since 14.07.2017 and applicant Monu is in custody since 11.08.2017.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and

¶12

contended that this is a case of broad-day light murder with eye witness account of first informant and there is no material contradiction with regard to place of incident because at the time of incident after cutting fodder the first informant, his wife and his parents were going by Bhaisa Buggi (Buffalo cart); that applicants if released on bail in this double murder case shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud fair disposal of trial .

¶13

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶14

Let the applicants Titu and Monu be released on bail in Case Crime No.200 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 I.P.C., P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut, on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicants will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that they are abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶16

(ii) The applicants will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities. 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.2.2020/VS

Titu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Titu 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

Giriraj Vs State of U.P.

Sardar @ Anil Dohare Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Shyam Vs State of Up and Another

Bheem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupendra Vs State of U.P.