Allowed

Kaushlendra Alias Atul v. State of U.P Secy. Home

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022/3630/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori granted bail to Kaushlendra alias Atul accused of murder, emphasizing composite consideration of facts, public interest, and Supreme Court precedents while imposing strict conditions under S. 439 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, conditions against inducing threats, not pressuring witnesses, remaining present at all trial stages.

Kaushlendra Alias Atul Vs State of U.P Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3630 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kaushlendra Alias Atul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh,Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit. It is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as also Sri Aditya Narain Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Kaushlendra alias Atul , aged about 28 years, under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 545 of 2021 for the offence punishable under sections 302 of I.P.C., P.S. Hargaon, District Sitapur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 25.10.2021 has been lodged by son of the deceased against three named persons Jain Singh, Jandail Singh and Shyamal Singh under section 302 of I.P.C. stating that on 22.10.2021 at about 11.00 a.m. his father had gone to cut fodder. After that on 25.10.2021 at 9.00 a.m. dead-body of his father was found in the sugarcane field of one Nageshwar Pandey. Prior to this incident named accused persons had old enmity with the family of the first informant and they had taken his sister to their house and one criminal case had also been lodged by one of the accused Jandail Singh about two years prior to the present incident. Due to this enmity they murdered his father Heera Lal, aged about 56 years.

¶9

After lodging of the first information report inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.10.2021 at 12.30 hrs. at the place of recovery. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.10.2021 at 4.40 p.m. As per the postmortem report three injuries were found on the person of the deceased- one is legature mark and two are contusions, fifth to seventh ribs were found fractured and contusions are related to scalp. Cause of death is Asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. After recording the statements of the first informant and other prosecution witnesses named persons namely Jain Singh, Jandail Singh and Shyamal Singh have been

¶10

exonerated by the investigating officer and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 12.12.2021. The applicant was arrested on 29.10.2021.

¶11

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 without considering the statement of the first informant who had lodged the F.I.R. of the present case the investigating officer exonerated three named accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the present case on the basis of his confessional statement. It is further submitted that after arresting the present applicant statements of two independent witnesses Amrit Lal and Data Ram have been recorded. It is further submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the fact that the applicant and the deceased were seen together by any prosecution witness. In the present case call details report of mobile number of the applicant have not been collected by the investigating officer and there is no electronic evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.10.2021. He has no criminal history.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

(a) The first information report had been lodged on 25.10.2021;

¶15

(b) There is no missing report with regard to the missing of the deceased;

¶16

¶17

(d) The applicant has been implicated on the basis of his confessional statement;

¶18

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

¶19

(e) The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.10.2021.

¶20

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 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Let applicant, Kaushlendra alias Atul 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:

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

( Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶35

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 A.Nigam

¶36

Digitally signed by ANUJ NIGAM Date: 2022.09.28 11:03:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kaushlendra Alias Atul v. State of U.P Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushlendra Alias Atul v. State of U.P 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

Waseer Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aleem @ Chhotu @ Aleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Ors.

Shiv Charan Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Pradeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secretariat, Lko.

Dharmendra Sigh Vs State of U.P.

Hasruddin Ansari @ Bauna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.