Allowed

Yogendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2021BAIL/8285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application for applicant Yogendra in a murder and attempt to murder case. The judgment notes discrepancies indicating the FIR as an antedated document, thereby benefiting the accused. Bail granted with bond and strict undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Yogendra released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with imposed conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8285 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Yogendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 119 of 2020, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. registered at P.S. B.B. Nagar, District Bulandshahar.

¶8

The First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 23.6.2020 at 02:15 hours by Udaiveer Singh, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. naming Yogendra the applicant and Jitendra@Sonu as the accused alleging therein that on 22.6.2020 he had gone to the house of his brother-in-law Ajaypal to give information regarding the 'Arasthi' (ceremony after death) of his bhabhi which was scheduled for 28.6.2020 during the day time. He had told his elder son Ambrish@Badal (the deceased) and his nephew Ankur (the injured) that they should come to Nagla Ugrasen along with money for purchasing articles for it. They in the morning at about 10.00 A.M. started for it and on the way Krishna Kumar their friend (another injured) also accompanied them on their bullet motorcycle. After reaching Nagla Ugrasen they parked their motorcycle in the field of their fufa and went to drink water where two persons who are the accused persons were present. They were armed with balkati and khufari knife. As soon as the motorcycle stopped they on considering them to be unknown started assaulting them. Ambrish@Badal and Ankur called their fufa on phone and kept in wait for him. Ajaypal their fufa reached the said place and saw the co-accused Jitendra@Sonu being armed with khufari knife and the applicant Yogendra being armed with a balkati, assaulting Ambrish@Badal, Ankur and Krishna Kumar. Ajaypal and Udaiveer Singh reached the

¶9

place. Ajaypal identified both the accused persons. They were of the village of Ajaypal. The incident is of 4.00P.M. Both the accused then left Ambrish@Badal, Ankur and Krishna Kumar in an injured condition and ran away, after which Ajaypal called the police of PCR 112. The police have taken them to the hospital. The injured Krishna Kumar and Ankur are undergoing treatment whereas Ambrish@Badal died on the spot.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the inquest on the dead body of the deceased Ambrish@Badal is shown to have been done on 23.6.2020 at 02.00 hours. It is shown to have concluded on 23.6.2020 at 02.30 hours. The post mortem report on the body of the deceased started on 23.6.2020 at 12:50 P.M. which concluded on the same day at 01:30 P.M. The dead body was received by the doctor for conducting post mortem on 23.6.2020 at 11:20 A.M. It is argued that in the inquest in the second page there is a recital that Udaiveer Singh has given an application about the death of his son and of the incident which has been registered as Case Crime No. 119 of 2020, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. against Jitendra@Sonu and Yogendra the applicant.

¶11

It is argued that even looking to the said fact and presuming the F.I.R. to be lodged at the time as stated in the same, the inquest proceedings have taken place on the day and time mentioned therein which could not have disclosed the case crime number, sections and the name of the accused of the present case. It is argued that the F.I.R. states that the police has taken the injured to the hospital and their treatment is going on which also gets belied from the documents of Dev Nandini Hospital which pertains to the injured Krishna Kumar in which it is specifically mentioned that he was brought by Sri Ramnath his father. It is argued that there is a clear overwriting in the inquest in the dates mentioned at all the places therein. In the column of the time of receiving information at the Police Station the date is mentioned as 22.6.2020. It is argued that the documents are ante timed documents. It is further argued that the applicant has no motive whatsoever to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that the prosecution has shown recovery of one knife on the pointing out of the applicant but the same is from an open place and there is no independent witness about the said recovery. There is no corroboration of the use of the said knife in the present incident. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.06.2020.

¶12

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There is recovery of a knife on his pointing out. The two injured persons

¶13

namely Krishna Kumar and Ankur have deposed regarding the implication of the applicant in the matter. The prayer for bail be rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the inquest and the post mortem report would go to show that the F.I.R. is an ante timed document. Once lodging of the F.I.R. becomes suspect the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Yogendra, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

The bail application is allowed.

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 10.12.2021 Naresh

Yogendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra 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

Amit Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Ram Dular Vishwakrma @ Ashok Vishwakrma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishikesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar @ Chhote Lalla Vs State of U.P.