The Single Judge granted bail to the applicant in a murder case involving disputes over tree cutting, noting a delay in FIR lodging and similarities to a co-accused who was already released.
Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of presence at proceedings, no tampering with evidence, and no unlawful activities.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37692 of 2021
Applicant :- Tribhuwan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madhu Ranjan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard applicant's counsel and Ld. AGA on the bail application of accused- Tribhuwan Singh.
It is argued that the F.I.R. had been lodged after three months and six days of the incident. The incident is of 7.9.2020 and the F.I.R. had been lodged on 12.12.2020. As per F.I.R., the deceased committed suicide by his own rifle but in the postmortem report the injuries of sharp edged weapon are also found on the body of the deceased. Co-accused Netram has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court, the role of applicant- Tribhuwan Singh is identical to that of coaccused Netram, hence the prayer for bail is made.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and submitted that the present co-accused is named in the F.I.R. because the deceased used to oppose the cutting of trees in the jungle so he has been murdered by the accused. Witnesses Hariom and Om Prakash have stated in their statements that in dispute of cutting trees and the exit of animals, deceased Sandeep got murdered. The deceased Sandeep had no other dispute apart from this. The bail order of co-accused Netram has been placed before me. In the F.I.R. which has been lodged after three months and six days of the incident the suspicion has been expressed on Waseem Ali, Tribhuwan Singh, Siyaram and Netram that all these persons have committed murder of the deceased.
As per post-mortem report one firearm injury with entry and exit wound and one sharp incised wound has been found but no foreign body or bullet has been found in the skull. As per X- Ray of the head multiple fractures are seen over and as per X- Ray of the chest, no bonny injury has been found and as per the post-mortem report the death is caused as a result of Antimortem injuries.
There is no dispute about the inflicting of antimortem injuries on the person of the deceased. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that the present accused has specifically caused
murder of the deceased. No incriminating material has been found on the pointing of this accused. Co-accused having same role has been granted bail from the co-ordinate Bench of this court. Hence, prima facie, there is no element of any confidence generating material on record so as to substantiate the allegations of murder upon the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 2.7.2021.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of offence, severity of punishment, period of custody as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant- Tribhuwan Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No.187 of 2015, under Sections 498A,304B,323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act., P.S.Patiyali, District-Kasganj, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that they are abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 15.12.2021 shiv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail considering the delay in FIR, co-accused bail, and nature of complicity.
Whether to impose conditions regarding presence at trial, non-tampering with evidence, and no unlawful activities.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Tribhuwan Singh
Sadhna Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
