Allowed

Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020BAIL/5712/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya in a murder case. Considering the totality of the case nature and evidence on record, the court released the applicant on bail with conditions including sureties and an undertaking to appear for trial stages and not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant Anil Kumar on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5712 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Vinod Prakash Srivastava (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri M.B. Yadav on behalf of informant today is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is also taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.K. Mishra for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 463 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj/Allahabad.

¶8

The factual matrix of the present case as stated are that on 19.5.2019, the deceased Rajesh went for a feast (Dawat) but did not return back. On 20.5.2019, a dead body of an unknown person was found lying by the side of a highway. The inquest upon the same was conducted on 20.5.2019 as an unknown body. Subsequently, on 21.5.2019 initially the postmortem was being conducted as that of an unknown body but it appears that during the postmortem examination Shashi Kant Dhuria identified the body as that of Rajesh Kumar Dhuria @ Golu then the first information report is said to have been registered on 22.5.2019 at 18:43hrs by Rajat Kumar.

¶9

Learned Senior counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The motive for committing the offence as being tried to be taken out for implicating the applicant is that there was some relationship between the deceased and Km. Ragini, the daughter of the applicant, as a result of which, the applicant murdered the deceased. He further argued that it is alleged that on the pointing out of the applicant on 24.5.2019, a nylon rope of about 2.5 meters and a shoe of the right leg allegedly of the

¶10

deceased were recovered from the bank of pond which were in mud and having mud on them. It is strenuously argued that the rope does not look in any manner gets connected with the incident and so far as the recovery of the shoe is concerned, the same has not been identified to be as that of the deceased. Even otherwise the recovery is fabricated as it is from a place easily assessable by all. The motive as alleged by the prosecution is false and even as per the first information report, there is no direct evidence and role assigned to the applicant. It is based on suspicion only where the applicant has been named along with three other persons and 2-3 unknown persons. It is further pointed out that the evidence of last seen in the statement of Km. Ragini is clearly an after thought as the same was recorded in parcha no. 6 dated 27.7.2019. The silence of Km. Ragini for a good period of more than two months gives a clear suggestion that the version given by her is as a result of tutoring. Lastly, he argued that the applicant is involved in two other cases one being matter under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and the other being under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and in both cases the applicant is on bail as explained in paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant oppose the bail and argued that the applicant has a motive to commit the offence. Statement of Km. Ragini is very natural which provides the motive being an important link in the matter. They further argue that the recovery of incriminating material has been done from the pointing out of the applicant but could not dispute the arguments as advanced by the Senior Counsel, therefore, the application for bail deserves to be rejected.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya, 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.2.2020

¶23

AKK

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar @ Munshi Dhuriya 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

Naseer @ Lal Badshah Vs State of U.P.

Astabhuja Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P.

Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju Vs State of U.P.