Allowed

Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma v. State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2022/1233/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of the applicant in a murder case. Citing the absence of eyewitnesses, lack of recovery, no prior criminal record, and parity with co-accused granted bail, the court held the applicant entitled to bail under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court appearance, non-tampering with evidence, and cooperation in trial.

Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1233 of 2022 Applicant :- Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob,Anupesh Kumar,Mulayam Singh Yadav

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant, Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 401 of 2021, under Section 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 29.09.2021; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. First Information Report was got lodged by informant against unknown assailant; it was a blind murder with no independent eye-witness account; the statement of Manoj Kumar and Banwari Lal is of this effect that applicant along with three others took wine at the shop of Banwari Lal; no witness of this occurrence of murder is there; no connecting link; nor there any motive; it is a case based on circumstantial evidence wherein a false implication is there. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the coaccused, Beche Lal Rawat and Sandeep alias Goga, who are the similarly circumstanced and identically placed as the applicant, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.4.2022 and 11.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1357 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4622 of 2022 respectively and the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the coaccused, who have been granted bail, therefore, the applicant may also be enlarged on bail by this Court on the ground of parity.

¶9

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to

¶10

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. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-24 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 30.09.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no blinking chances of any early conclusion of trial as till date not a single witness has been examined.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed, but could not oppose the fact that the applicant is of no criminal antecedent; neither named in the FIR nor was there any recovery from the applicant.

¶12

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 fact that neither applicant was named in the First Information Report, nor there was any eyewitness account of the occurrence of the murder, nor any recovery of incriminating article is from the applicant nor any witness with regard to connecting link could be shown by the learned counsel for the prosecution and considering that the similarly circumstances and identically placed other co-accused have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court, the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of parity as well as further 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 UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant, Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 401 of 2021, under Section 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki, 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.8.2022/Mustaqeem

¶26

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.10 11:38:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma v. State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma v. State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow

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

Rahul Vs State of U.P. through,Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko

Nirdesh S/O Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Aman Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Ankul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mazhar Khan Vs State of U.P.