Allowed

Bhupendra Prajapati @ Bhupesh Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022/11046/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three bail applications filed by co-accused facing murder charges based on circumstantial evidence were heard by the High Court. The court observed lack of direct evidence and potential for circumstantial case proof, deciding to grant bail with stringent conditions regarding court attendance and no adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon execution of personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding attendance and no adjournments.

Bhupendra Prajapati @ Bhupesh Prajapati Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11046 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bhupendra Prajapati @ Bhupesh Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Ojha,Ajay Kumar Ojha,Dhirendra Shukla,Sujit Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Pratap Singh,Vikas Chaturvedi

¶4

connected with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7203 of 2021 Applicant :- Prince Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Srivastava,Vikas Chaturvedi Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7233 of 2021

¶6

Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Brij Bhushan Singh,Raghvendra P. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Srivastava,Vikas Chaturvedi

¶7

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri J.L. Maurya, learned counsel representing the State and S/Sri Indra Pratap Singh, Rahul Srivastava and Vikas Chaturvedi, learned counsels for the complainant.

¶9

These three applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking bail in FIR No.44 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station Maandhata, District Pratapgarh.

¶10

It is alleged that the accused-applicants killed the deceased, Lucky Prajapati in a criminal conspiracy and threw his body in a drainage. Earlier lodging of the present FIR, an FIR under Section 363 IPC was lodged against the unknown persons saying that on 16.1.2021 at around 11 AM, the deceased, Lucky Prajapati, aged around 20 years, went out of his home, but,

¶11

thereafter, his whereabouts could not be known. The said FIR was registered on 21.1.2021 on a compliant given by the father of the deceased and the present FIR in question came to be registered on 2.2.2021.

¶12

Post-mortem report would suggest the following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

¶13

"1. Lacerated wound size 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm present on right temporal region, 4 cm above from right ear pinna, woulds margin inverted, blackening present around the wound ( seems to be entry ..).

¶14

2. Lacerated wound size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on 12 cm from right ear pinna, wounds margin inverted, blackening present around, the wound seems to be entry wound.

¶15

3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 4 cm present on left palmer aspect at base of thumb with bone deep.

¶16

4. Lacerated wound size 30 cm x 14 cm present on back of right shoulder and dorsal spine with bone deep.”

¶17

Immediate cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The time of death wad opined to be 3-4 days before the date of post-mortem, which took place on 1.2.2021. During the course of investigation, name of the accused-applicants came to light.

¶18

It is alleged that the deceased was having affair with the sister of Prince Gupta and the other two accused-applicants conspired with the said Prince Gupta to eliminate the deceased. The accused-applicants called the deceased to play cricket and, thereafter, he was abducted and killed. Role of firing on the deceased has been assigned to accused, Prince Gupta and Sujeet Kumar Prajapati. Though there is allegation of abduction and killing the deceased against the accused-applicants, but there is no direct evidence against them, and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The accused-applicants have no criminal history and they have in prison since 9.2.2021, 8.6.2021 and 8.2.2021 respectively. The accused-applicants are young men.

¶19

Learned AGA and the learned counsels for the complainants have opposed the prayer for bail, but not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶20

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no direct evidence against the accusedapplicants to connect the accused-applicants in the commission of offence, and the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it would appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicants on bail.

¶21

Let applicants Bhupendra Prajapati @ Bhupesh Prajapati, Sujeest Kumar Prajapati and Prince Gupta be released on bail in the above case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶22

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶23

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

¶24

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶26

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 them in accordance with law.

¶27

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 Rao/-

¶28

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.05.26 18:15:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhupendra Prajapati @ Bhupesh Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Prajapati @ Bhupesh Prajapati 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

Ajay Singh Third Bail Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Swarnkar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Khelawan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bablu S/O Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Zakir Ali Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Muneem Vs State of U.P.