Allowed

Pawan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2020BAIL/6021/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court granted bail to the applicant charged with murder and culpable homicide. The court imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, ensure presence for specific trial stages, and allowed for prosecution under Sections 174-A IPC and 229-A IPC upon misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant from custody on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific undertakings to comply with trial proceedings and refrain from tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6021 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prashant Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Pawan seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with case crime no.377 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Kurawali, District Mainpuri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that a first information report in the present case was lodged on 11.09.2019 at about 15.25 hours by Kishori Lal mentioning therein that on 10.09.2019 his brother Sughar Singh aged about 35 years along with his nephew Pawan son of Mahendra Singh went to the peanut plant for doing his duties wherein Pawan son Tukman met them. Then Pawan son of Mahendra Singh and the deceased Sughar Singh went on the motorcycle of Pawan son of Tukman to the countrymade liquor shop and had liquor there and then returned at about 12.30 A.M. Subsequently the nephew of the first informant namely Pawan son of Mahendra Singh stayed at the peanut plant and his brother Sughar Singh went with Pawan son of Tukman. Later on on 11.09.2019 the deadbody of Sughar Singh

¶8

was found in the paddy field near Gailanath bridge. It is further mentioned in the first information report that the first informant has suspicion that his brother has been murdered by Pawan son of Tukman and his associates.

¶9

He further argues that the first informant was not the witness of even taking away of the deceased by the applicant. There is no evidence to connect the applicant in the present case. Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The post mortem of deadbody of the deceased was done on 12.09.2019 wherein the Doctor had opined the time since death was about 2-3 days and the death was because of Asphyxia due to strangulation. The applicant is said to have no motive to commit aforesaid offence.There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 14.09.2019 and has no criminal antecedents, therefore, he be released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail but could not dispute the argument of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant Pawan 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 229-A IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.2.2020 Asha

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Pawan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azad Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Bhim Sen Vs State of U.P.

Balram Patel Vs State of U.P.

Anit @ Tota Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sewak Yadav Vs State of U.P.