Allowed

Virendra Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2021BAIL/6263/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court allowed a bail application filed by Virendra Pal charged with conspiracy to commit murder. The court noted the FIR lacked the applicant's name, no incriminating material was recovered, and reliance on the applicant's confession was deemed misplaced at the bail stage.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Virendra Pal on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses and repeating offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6263 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irfan Hasan,Madhur Prasad,Malay Prasad,Subhash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant urges that in this case as many as six named and one unknown person have been involved in this case. The FIR was lodged on 20.06.2020 at 11.18 P.M. in Police Station- Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 120B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. Regarding the incident, which allegedly took place the very same day at 1.00 P.M. The informant is Dharmendra Singh Sengar- brother of the deceased- Pintu Sengar, whereby description was given regarding the six persons as to how the incident was caused by them using country-made gun/pistol, who came from behind on two motorcycles and opened indiscriminate firing thus, injured the brother of the informant seriously, who after sustaining injury fell on the spot. The driver of the vehicle from which the deceased alighted U.P. 78 EN 9376 INNOVA Car anyhow saved and after hiding himself at some distance, saw the occurrence. At last the injured was taken to the Regency Hospital where injured- Pintu Sengar was declared dead.

¶7

In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, argument is that after the occurrence took place, the applicant was arrested on 3.7.2020. The confessional statement of the applicant and gist of the offence formed the basis of the involvement of the applicant in this case. Except that, there is nothing on record, which may show complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. In so far as the statement of the wife of the deceased is concerned, the same was recorded belatedly after four and half months and the same is full of embellishment because the applicant's name does not figure in the first information report and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. At the most, role of hatching conspiracy

¶8

may be attributed to the applicant. The case of the applicant stands on better footing to that of another co- accused Shyam Sushil Mishra who was also arrested in the like manner. He also made confessional statement and his implication merely because of based on confessional statement, he has been admitted to bail on 26.3.2021 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1702 of 2021. In so far as case of co- accused Shyam Sushil Mishra is concerned, his role is graver than the present appellant. There is no concrete and clinching evidence against the applicant.

¶9

Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and brought various aspects of this case to the notice of this Court and claimed that the applicant happens to be the main conspirator and his role has been very much described by none other than the wife of the deceased in her statement recorded on 6.10.2020. All these details itself to show that the applicant has a nexus with the crime in question and had genuine cause of hatching conspiracy. It being so, the role of the applicant cannot be minimized merely on the ground that he has not been named in the first information report. The first information report is not an encyclopedia. He also claimed that the applicant was a partner in the firm of the deceased- Pintu Singh Sengar.

¶10

Also heard the learned A.G.A.

¶11

Upon consideration of various aspects of this case, it is an admitted position that in this case, so far as the incident is concerned, it is a broad day light incident which took place at 1.00 P.M. on 20.06.2020 and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Nothing incriminating, infact, has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant claims that he has no criminal history. In so far as the role of the applicant is concerned, the FIR is silent about the same, however, in the statement of the wife of the deceased was recorded on 6.10.2020 which speaks about conspiracy being hatched, however, prior to that no statement was recorded. Under the circumstances it may be pointed out that whatever confessional statement was given by the applicant has got no legal relevancy at this stage and cannot be read against the applicant and in so far as the role of the applicant is concerned regarding which the statement of the wife of the deceased will have relevancy only at the time of trial and the co- accused Shyam Sushil Mishra has also been admitted to bail, copy whereof has been produced by the applicant the same is taken on record.

¶12

In view of above, considering the rival submissions and the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Virendra Pal involved in Session Trial No.953 of 2020 arising out of case crime no.425 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station- Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned

¶14

following conditions that :-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

He will cooperate in the trial bonafidely without seeking adjournments.

¶17

He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Raj

Virendra Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Pal 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

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Anand Kumar @ Dablu Vs State of U.P and Another

Manish Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dhruv Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another