Allowed

Vikrant v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2021BAIL/25977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. where the applicant was not assigned the role of firing by the eye-witness. The court imposed specific conditions for bail and directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and sureties, and direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25977 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vikrant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Bhushan

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Vikrant, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Sessions Trial No. 358 of 2019 (State vs. Sunny@Sagar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0756 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307, 34 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17810 of 2019 (Vikrant vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.1.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that trial in the present matter has started in which Kumari Harshita@Harsh has been examined as P.W.-2 in which she has stated that the co-accused Manish @Tillu made first fire on her brother Naman, after which the co-accused Sunny@Sagar fired upon him which hit him. It is argued that as such the applicant has not been assigned role of firing upon the deceased in the said statement. It is argued that Kumari Harshita@Harsh is an eye witness to the incident who was accompanying the deceased Naman on his motorcycle. Learned counsel argued that looking to the statement of Kumari Harshita@Harsh, the applicant gets exonerated. It is further argued that the deceased although was found to have received four firearm injuries but amongst the said four injuries two injuries are entry wounds whereas two wounds are exit wounds, which have been stated by her to have been fired by the co-accused Manish@Tillu and Sunney @ Sagar. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.11.2018.

¶9

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the argument which is particularly with regard to the statement of Kumari Harshita@Harsh before the trial

¶10

court.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that Kumari Harshita@Harsh was the person who was accompanying the deceased on a motorcycle. She states of fire upon the deceased by Manish@Tillu and Sunney@Sagar in her deposition before the trial court while being examined as P.W.-2. The applicant has not been assigned the role of firing upon the deceased in her statement.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly the deposition of Kumari Harshita@Harsh before the trial court, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Vikrant, 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

¶19

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶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

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2002) 1 SCC 655 , Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702 , subject to any legal impediment.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.12.2021

¶24

Naresh

¶25

Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.12.03 18:46:29 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikrant v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant 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

Subham Vs State of U.P.

Mintoo Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pratap Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kusuma Vs State of U.P.

Brij Bihari Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others