Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022/293/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving murder and affray was allowed. The court found contradictions in prosecution witness statements and noted that co-accused with similar roles were already on bail. Considering Article 21 and the coordinate bench's orders, the applicant was granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail requiring a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and ensuring court appearance.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. through,Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 293 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through,Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vidhu Bhushan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh,Mohd.Mateen

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Kunwar Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vineeta Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Aniruddha Singh, learned AGA1 for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR No.148 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 307, 302 IPC and Section 7 Criminal law amendment Act, Police Station Harraiyya, District Balrampur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution case, as narrated in the FIR that on 18.10.2021 at around 10 AM, the complainant along with his uncle, Krishna Prakash Shukla (deceased) and Joginder Yadav S/o Malik Ram Yadav were going to Bhadsahiya Market on Super Splendor Motorcycle. At around 11:30 PM, when they were coming back and as soon as they reached near Kushmahawa Turn, one of the accused namely Rakesh alias Rajesh alias Mahant Yadav came by driving Swaraj Tractor and hit the motorcycle upon which the complainant, deceased and Joginder Yadav were sitting, with intention to kill them, resulting they fell down from the motorcycle. The other named accused persons namely Umakant, Rahul, Satish Kumar and Jitendra who were already standing there caught hold of deceased (Krishna Prakash Shukla) and the accused namely Rakesh alias Rajesh alias Mahant Yadav ran over the deceased by the Tractor. When the accused named in the FIR believed that deceased died, they left him. The complainant has also received injury by falling the motorcycle but he any how managed to escape. The complainant witnessed the alleged incident. Uncle of the complainant was brought to the hospital, who was referred to the District Hospital, however, he died on the way.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to election rivalry. He further submits that complainant (eye witness) in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that present applicant and other coaccused Jitendra, Satish Kumhar and Umakant have caught hold of the deceased and coaccused Rakesh alias Rajesh alias Mahant Yadav crushed the deceased by the tractor. He submits that the complainant has not taken the name of coaccused Ram Nivas Yadav and Bachcharam (not named in the FIR) in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also in the FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Joginder Yadav (eye witness) in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that present applicant and other coaccused Jitendra, Satish Kumhar and Umakant have caught hold of the deceased and coaccused Bachcharam

¶10

and Ram Nivas had exhorted and assisted the other coaccused to commit the alleged incident. He also stated that coaccused Mahant Yadav crushed the deceased by the tractor.

¶11

Ram Krishna Shukla and Rajesh Kumar (witness of Panchayatnama/eye witness ) in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that present applicant and other coaccused Jitendra, Satish Kumhar and Umakant have caught hold of the deceased and coaccused Bachcharam and Ram Nivas had exhorted the coaccused Mahant to kill the deceased.

¶12

Ram Nihor Pal (witness of Panchayatnama/eye witness) in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not assigned the specific role of committing alleged incident to any of the accused persons.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is vast contraction in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and first information report. Thus, the prosecution story is false and fabricated.

¶14

High lighting the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Satish Prajapati (mentioned as Satish Kumar in FIR) and Umakant Yadav who have been assigned the similar role of catching hold of the deceased as of the present applicant, have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide orders 6.4.2022 and 5.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 659 of 2022 and 456 of 2022 respectively. He submits that the case of the present applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the said coaccused, who were assigned the similar role, have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he is also entitled for the benefit of the same and to be released on bail.

¶15

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 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 accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 23.10.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that coaccused Satish Prajapati (mentioned as Satish Kumar in FIR) and Umakant Yadav having similar role as of the present applicant have been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this Court, However, he also could not dispute the facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar

¶18

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, considering that coaccused having similar role as of the present applicant, have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court and the accused applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of parity. There is contradiction in the statements of the eye witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and further considering the larger mandate of 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant Rahul involved in Case Crime No. 148 of 2021, under Sections 147/148/149/506/307/302 I.P.C.,and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act Police Station Harraiyya, District Balrampur be released 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 :-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(5) 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. 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.

¶26

(6) The applicant shall remain present in person, before the trial court on the date 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such Rahul default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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 the applicant's bail.

¶30

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 merits of the case.

¶31

Order Date :- 2.8.2022

¶32

GSY

¶33

Digitally signed by GULAB Date: 2022.08.06 18:06:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, District Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Parshuram Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home Deptt, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow

Vijay Pratap @ Puttur Vs State of U.P.

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.

Sujeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.