Allowed

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur v. the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022/1306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to applicant accused of murder and kidnapping. Bench granted relief despite serious charges, noting applicant was not in FIR initially and implicated only by co-accused confession, with no incriminating articles recovered.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, presence in court, and no further criminal activity.

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1306 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arpit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Shivnath Yadav alias Bhullar under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 314 of 2021 under sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Ayodhya/Faizabad during pendency of trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 13.8.2021 has been lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased under section 302, 201 of I.P.C. against Rajesh Maurya and unknown persons stating that on 10.8.2021 brotherin-law (Bahnoi) of the informant had gone to school, but he did not return. After that a missing report had been lodged on 10.8.2021, dead-body of his brother-in-law was found in the canal near Kutubpur Fatak and there were some injuries on the head and other parts of the body and Rajesh Maurya alongwith his companions had committed murder of his brother-in-law, because Rajesh Maurya had illicit relations with his sister. It was informed by the deceased to the first informant that twothree years prior to the incident Rajesh Maurya enticed away his sister. After that his brother in law had left the parental house and resided in another place.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report inquest of the body of the deceased had been conducted on 12.8.2021 at 15 hrs at the place of recovery of the dead-body. The postmortem had also been conducted on 12.8.2021 at 7.50 p.m. As per the postmortem report five injuries were found on the person of the deceased, one is lacerated. Three other are contusions and one bruises. Cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning and time of death is about 2-3 days ago. After recording statements of the prosecution witnesses including the first informant charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and four other persons including Rajesh Maurya on 1.10.2021. The applicant was arrested on 13.8.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. As per first information report all allegations to commit the offence of murder of the brother-in-law of the first informant is leveled against the named co-accused Rajesh Maurya. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant is surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Rajesh Maurya who had been arrested on 13.8.2021. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the applicant. The Scorpio, as alleged in the investigation, is related to co-accused Rajesh Maurya and weapon of murder (cricket bat) had been recovered on pointing of the co-accused Rajesh Maurya. It is further submitted that except the confessional statement of the co-accused Rajesh Maurya there is no other evidence, circumstantial or direct, against the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.8.2021. The applicant has no criminal history antecedent.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

After considering the facts of the present case it, prima facie , appears -

¶12

(a) The applicant is not named in the first information report, which has been lodged after recovery of the dead body;

¶13

(b) On the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Rajesh Maurya the applicant has been implicated in the present case;

¶14

¶15

(d) No incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the applicant or his pointing.

¶16

(e) The applicant has no concern with the vehicle Scorpio.

¶17

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which

¶18

conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶19

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 , Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let applicant, Shivnath Yadav alias Bhullar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶26

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

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶28

ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶29

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶30

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶31

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶32

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.

¶33

( Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶34

Order Date :- 21.9.2022 A.Nigam

¶35

Digitally signed by ANUJ NIGAM Date: 2022.09.23 18:19:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur v. the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur v. the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Faruk Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Moorti Verma @ Pooja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Sahai Verma Vs State of U.P. through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.