Allowed

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2021BAIL/13865/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application for murder under IPC 302 and 120-B, the High Court clubbed two heinous offences involving the same deceased. The applicant argued circumstantial evidence and long detention. The Court allowed bail on heavy sureties citing prior bail approval in a related case and equating reliance on a purported affidavit with lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two heavy sureties; bail granted on heavy conditions including appearance and no adjournments.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13865 of 2020 Applicant :- Surendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avdhesh Chandra Nigam Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Jai Raj Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avdhesh Chandra Nigam, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶4

Present is a second bail application filed by the applicant - Surendra Singh for the offence under Sections-302, 120-B IPC arising from Case Crime No.67 of 2018, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar . Applicant has been in confinement since 22.01.2018 i.e. for more than three and a half years. While rejecting the first bail application vide order dated 07.12.2019, it was observed as under:-

¶5

"6. The above prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA, who would submit that the two FIRs having been lodged, it is the fact that in earlier case, the deceased, who was the victim (in that case), had given her personal affidavit, making specific allegations against the present applicant. In the present occurrence, the applicant has set up an unbelievable story which has been rightly disbelieved, in light of the material and evidence gathered by the prosecution. Thus, it has been submitted, no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out.

¶6

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, the applicant enjoyed a special relationship with the deceased, inasmuch as, according to the own case of the applicant, they were living together. Then, as to the fact that the applicant had lodged the FIR, it cannot be overlooked at this stage that in the earlier case of attempt to commit murder, the applicant had been chargesheeted in that case and that trial is pending."

¶7

At the trial, certain witnesses have been examined. However, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that those witnesses have been examined only with respect to circumstantial evidence being claimed by the prosecution. Other than the applicant's confessional statement, it is stated that there is no other evidence to support the prosecution story. Further, as to the occurrence, it has been submitted, earlier the applicant had lodged an FIR making allegation of attempt to

¶8

murder, against named persons. Though, the statement of the deceased (who was the victim in that case) was never recorded by the Investigating Officer, later upon her murder on 20.01.2018, the chargesheet was submitted in that earlier FIR, against the applicant, relying on a purported affidavit of the deceased. That document is stated to be a forged document. Thus in that case also, other than the confessional statement of the present applicant, there is stated to be complete lack of evidence. In such circumstances, it has been submitted that applicant has undergone a very long detention. He has already been enlarged on bail in the earlier case being case crime no.1010 of 2016 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar, by means of the order dated 15.12.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46157 of 2020.

¶9

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant. It has been thus submitted that the applicant was chargesheeted in both cases upon due evidence being discovered during investigation. The applicant had earlier attempted to and later committed the murder of the deceased, occasioned by greed (arising from her property). As to the trial, it has been submitted that the same has not been delayed at the instance of the prosecution as is clear from the copy of the order sheet annexed with the counter affidavit. He would also clarify that certain witnesses still remain to be examined at the trial and therefore no conclusion of fact in any case is possible to reach in the present facts of the case. The case involves a heinous offence and therefore no latitude may be shown to the applicant.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the context of the second bail application, it is found relevant that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the earlier case being case crime no.1010 of 2016, under Section 307 IPC, Police StationKalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar. While that may not be a decisive factor in itself, at the same time, taking a holistic view over the facts, it does appear that prima facie, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and that the applicant has remained confined for more than three and a half years. Keeping in mind the nature of allegations made and the status of the case, no prima facie satisfaction exists that if the applicant is released on bail, he may either endanger or cause risk to the society, generally or may intimidate any witness of fact. The trial itself may take some time to conclude. The fact that the jail authorities could not produce the applicant on all dates may not be cited as a non-cooperation shown by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant is found entitled to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, though on heavy sureties.

¶11

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶12

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Surendra Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are

¶13

being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶18

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be

¶20

self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶23

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to nonavailability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶24

It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶25

It is further expected that the trial court shall make all efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, without allowing any undue or long adjournment to either side.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.10.2021 S.Chaurasia

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh 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

Dhanshila Devi and Others Vs Mohd. Kamal and Another

Smt. Rati and Another Vs Saroj Kumar Jaswal and Another

Smt. Krishanwati and 2 Ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Jaswal and Another

Kamlesh @ Bachchan Vs State of U.P.

Utkarsh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Bateshwar Dayal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another