Allowed

Munesh Kumar @ Lalla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2020BAIL/5795/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the accused in a murder trial. The court observed a lack of strong evidence connecting the applicant to the crime, including an indecisive post-mortem report, but imposed strict conditions to appear in court and prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to specific conditions to ensure attendance and prevent tampering with evidence.

Munesh Kumar @ Lalla Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5795 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Munesh Kumar @ Lalla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Munesh Kumar @ Lalla , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 139 of 2019, under Sections 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Gangiri, District Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the F.I.R of the present incident was registered on 10.09.2019 at 13:21 hrs by Mohan Lal with the allegation that his son Rinku was taken away on 09.09.2019 at about 20:00 hrs by one Sanjay and the applicant did not return back for the whole night. On the next day i.e. on 10.09.2019 at about 06:00 a.m. one Kripa Shankar of the same village informed him that the dead body of his son was lying near a hand-pump on the road on which they went there and found the dead body of his son lying there. He argued that except for the taking away of the deceased by the applicant and co-accused there is no other evidence whatsoever to connect him in the present matter. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the post mortem report / Annexure- 3 to the affidavit in which he argues that the doctor conducting the same has left the column of "time since death" as empty and as such it is indecisive as to the approximation of the time about the death of the deceased. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 12.09.2019 having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Let the applicant, Munesh Kumar @ Lalla , 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

¶11

of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Munesh Kumar @ Lalla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munesh Kumar @ Lalla 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

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

Santosh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Premchandra Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jahir Ali @ Jahid Ansari Vs State of U.P.