Allowed

Balakram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022/429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application in a murder case, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, relying on parity with co-accused who had already been released. The court noted the absence of the applicant in the FIR and lack of eyewitness testimony, citing constitutional mandates and precedents.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 429 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Balakram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Azmi Yousuf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit on behalf of State and in reply thereto rejoinder affidavit on behalf of applicant are on the record, hence pleadings are complete and have already been exchanged between the parties.

¶6

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

¶7

The applicant, Balakram , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2021, under Section 147, 364, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. He has further submitted that general allegations have been levelled against four persons including the present applicant. He has further submitted that the alleged recovery of murdered weapon shown in the recovery memo has been made on the pointing out of coaccused Vijay alias Kallu and Bablu Ram Verma alias Rahul alias Tandiya. There is no independent witness of the incident in question. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the similar allegations, two co-accused namely, Ram Ganesh and Kusuma Devi have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.05.2022 and 21.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 291 and 67, both of the year 2022. He also submits that since similar role has been assigned to the applicant, the case of applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid two co-accused, and case of the applicant is in parity with them, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering the evidence or witnesses. He undertakes that the applicant shall co-operate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶11

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 fact has been stated in para-23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no blinking chances of any early conclusion of trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

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 and alleged recovery of murdered weapon shown in the recovery memo has been made on the pointing out of co-accused Vijay alias Kallu and Bablu Ram Verma alias Rahul alias Tandiya; nor any witness with regard to connecting link could be shown by the prosecution and considering that similarly circumstances and identically placed other co-accused, Ram Ganesh and Kusuma Devi have already been granted bail by a 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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant, Balakram, involved in Case Crime No. 213 of 2021, under Section 147, 364, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, 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 :-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the

¶25

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 merit of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 4.8.2022 Mustaqeem

¶29

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.10 16:48:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Balakram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakram 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

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

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

Ankul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mahante Alias Chulbul Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.

Kalau Alias Kamla Kant Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Govind Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow