Allowed

Shiva Alias Shiv Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022/3302/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 13, Allahabad granted bail to applicants Shiva and Mohit Saroj in a triable court case involving murder and conspiracy charges. The court allowed bail citing Article 21, principles of parity with a co-accused, and the unreliability of the extra-judicial confession.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail upon executing a personal bond and two sureties each under specified conditions.

Shiva Alias Shiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3302 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shiva Alias Shiv Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicantsShiva @ Shiv Kumar and Mohit Saroj for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.185 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Hathigawan, District Pratapgrah, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the coaccused Sapna Saroj had lodged F.I.R. on 19.09.2021 at Police Station Hathigawan, District Pratapgrah against unknown persons alleging therein that on 15.09.2021 at about 08:00 when her husband (deceased) was taking dinner, a phone call was received on his mobile phone and he without taking his dinner had left the house and thereafter a person in the name of Arjun Pal of the village informed her that one Bolero vehicle had come from the side of Village Bhitara and deceased had boarded that vehicle and thereafter he did not return. It is also submitted in the F.I.R. that on 18.09.2021, photographs of a dead body was being circulated on the Whatsapp groups and she had gone to the scene and identified her husband in the mortuary. During the course of investigation, complicity of the applicant as well as other co-accused persons had surfaced for hatching a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and the conspiracy is shown to be overheard by a witness namely Lallu Yadav and thereafter the applicant and other co-accused persons were shown to have been arrested and confessed their guilt while they were in the custody of the police to the tune that the applicant in order to eliminate the deceased had hatched conspiracy with other co-accused persons and as also the earrings (Jhumka) of co-accused Sapna Saroj was also recovered from the possession of the co-accused Dablu.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the case

¶10

of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as nobody has seen the applicant or any other person committing the offence and the circumstances, which are being alleged against the applicant, are so weak that the prosecution would not be able to secure conviction of the applicant in the court of law.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the police has falsely implicated them and the applicants have no any relation or connected with the co-accused Sapna Saroj or her any family member as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that there was no occasion for the applicant to have hatched any conspiracy to murder the husband of the coaccused Sapna Saroj, which has been cooked up by the prosecution with the aid of the persons, who are inimical towards the applicant, is highly improbable and self contradictory as one independent witness in the name of Arjun Pal is stated to have seen the deceased leaving village in Bolero vehicle, therefore, the prosecution is taking contradictory stand.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that the similarly circumstanced and identically placed other coaccused, namely Sapna Saroj, wife of the deceased has already been granted bail by this Court vide its order dated 14.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 133 of 2022 and the case of the applicant is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused who has already granted bail by this Court, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered and he should also be released on bail on principles of parity.

¶13

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. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 24.09.2021 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

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 in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that in particular, the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the fact that the evidence against the applicant is one of extra judicial confession alone with no independent evidence to prima facie indicate his complicity; similarly circumstanced and identically placed other co-accused, namely Sapna Saroj, wife of the deceased has already been granted bail by this Court and 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicants- Shiva @ Shiv Kumar and Mohit Saroj involved in Case Crime No.185 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Hathigawan, District Pratapgrah be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(5) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial, 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.

¶23

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 17.8.2022

¶29

Arvind

¶30

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.18 16:57:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiva Alias Shiv Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Alias Shiv Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home 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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bipul S/O Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Smt. Madhuri W/O Rajemdra Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Dharmendra Saroj and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. A.C.S / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Arif S/O Sharif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Firoz Ahmad S/O Mohd. Younus Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko