Allowed

Suresh Kumar Pasi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022/1157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Suresh Kumar Pasi in an FIR alleging IPC offences during a panchayat election dispute, citing lack of direct evidence and failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties, bound by specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct during the trial.

Suresh Kumar Pasi Vs State of U.P. through Principal… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1157 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Pasi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Chandra Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Girish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant, Suresh Kumar Pasi , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in F.I.R. No. 109 of 2021, under Sections 147,148,323,336,307,302/34, 504 IPC , Police Station- Musafirkhana District Amethi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 25.04.2021, an FIR was registered under Sections 147,148,323 and 307 I.P.C. at Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi by the complainant/ Amir Ullah, naming five persons i.e. Moin, Motin, Mojin, Mohd. Quamar & Sohail as accused in which the name of the present applicant was not find place nor there was any allegation against the applicant of any kind.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that in the F.I.R. it has been stated that one Alam Bhai was contesting Panchayat Election and when he was going for canvassing alongwith his supporters including the complainant Amir Ullah. As soon as they reached near the house of the accused persons, namely, Moin, Motin Mojin , Mohd Qamar and Suhail, all of them with the intention to kill us attacked with sticks and batons, in which Mohd. Alam, Mohd. Azam, Imran, Mohd Jama, Mohd. Nasir Mansoor Ahmad and Ahsan Ahmad have sustained injuries. The complainant has also stated that all the injured persons went away through their vehicles. The police has arrested the accused persons who were named in the FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the police started the initial investigation on 26.04.2021 and has mentioned in the Case Diary that although the

¶10

complainant and injured persons are not available for investigation but the Investigating Officer, on the tips of the police informers whose name has not been disclosed has falsely implicated the applicant alongwith more than 12-15 persons in the present case.

¶11

It was further argued that the police/ Investigating Officer has not disclosed the name of the informer, therefore, the entire prosecution story creates doubt and demolish the entire case.The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident as he was not present on the spot nor he was involved in any such incident as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in the present case maliciously on the ground of village 'Partibandi' and also to get some money from the complainant towards the labour work.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that name of the applicant came in the statement of police informer which could not be believed to be true.

¶13

It was further argued that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant,namely, Ameer Ullah on 28.04.2021 in which he informed that one injured,namely, Imran was died and added the name of the applicant alongwith other persons whose names were taken by the police informer. Thereafter Section 302 IPC was inserted after the death of Imran whereas the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident nor he has any relation regarding the death of Imran.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that Imran was not medically examined by the doctor nor any medical examination was conducted which creates probability on the prosecution story and also create doubt.

¶15

It is further argued that rest of the person to whom it is alleged that the injuries caused to them by blunt object and were simple in nature and no evidence was collected against the accused persons except the name of accused by the interested witness. None of the witnesses mentioned by the police has at any point of time stated about the role of the applicant in the alleged incident nor it was mentioned that the applicant was present on the spot or he attacked on dead person, namely, Imran.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the

¶17

complainant and the family members are taking advantage of the death of Imran to settle story against their enemies, who are not involved in the incident. The applicant has no concern with the canvassing of any panchayat candidate nor he is interested in the said election. He simply an agricultural labour. The Police with malafide intention and in a mechanical manner filed charge-sheet under Sections147, 148, 323, 336, 307, 302/34, 504 I.P.C. against the applicant and other coaccused persons without any basis. Therefore he is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

The present case is being a case of the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled law that where there is no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence; the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In other words, there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. All the links in the chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence. In the present case there is no continuing chain of evidence.

¶19

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 26.10.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶20

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that his name was taken by the police , therefore it cannot be said that the applicant was not involved in the

¶21

incident.

¶22

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant, Suresh Kumar Pasi involved in F.I.R. No.109 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 307, 302/34, 504 IPC, Police Station- Musafirkhana District Amethi, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶25

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶26

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶27

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶28

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶29

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the

¶31

case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶32

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶33

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶34

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶35

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶36

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 dk/

¶37

Digitally signed by DEVENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.02.15 17:07:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh Kumar Pasi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Pasi v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home

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

Prabhat Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Rizwan Ali @ Videshi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma Vs State of U.P. through the secretary Home DepT.

Smt Pinki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. , U.P. Lucknow

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Dept. Lko

Smt. Urmila Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow