Allowed

Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020BAIL/5715/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case registered under Section 302 IPC. Despite a recovery of a weapon and alleged motive, the court found the evidence circumstantial and insufficient to deny bail, imposing strict conditions to ensure appearance and prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with imposed conditions of appearance and conduct.

Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5715 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel files his vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and 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 Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with case crime no.596 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that a first information report in the present matter has been registered against unknown persons. Subsequently the statement of the first informant was recorded which is annexure-6 to the affidavit in which he has stated that when the post mortem of Brahma Pal was being conducted, wife of the applicant came there and she was crying and has stated that the present applicant may have committed the murder for which she has suspicion. The next evidence is of Kunwar Pal (Annexure-7 to the affidavit) in which he has stated that on 19.08.2019 i.e. the date of occurrence in the night while he was returning from Sikandarpur on his motorcycle, he saw the applicant standing at the crossing of Singhpur at about 10.00 P.M. to which he did not make special notice. In the morning when he came to know that Brahma Pal has been murdered, he then remembered that around two months back Brij Mohan had given beating to his wife on a suspicion that she was having some relationship with Brahma Pal.

¶9

He further argued that a recovery of countrymade pistol has been shown from the possession of the applicant which he was carrying at the time of his arrest. He argues that there is no

¶10

reliable evidence whatsoever to connect the applicant in the aforesaid offence. The case is of circumstantial in nature. A recovery of the countrymade pistol in any manner is not connected with the incident. It is next argued that the applicant is in jail since 23.08.2019 and has no criminal antecedents as stated in para23 of the affidavit, therefore, he be released on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA oppose the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant had motive to commit the offence coupled with the fact that there is a recovery of countrymade pistol which he was carrying with himself at the time of his arrest but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant.

¶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 Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju 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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Asha

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajmohan Singh @ Bijju 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.

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

Santosh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P.