Allowed

Buin Urf Gudun Urf Arjun Kumar S/O Sadashiv Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022/5114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to two accused-applicants charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court imposed a financial condition requiring the deposit of Rs. 50,000 each and set specific conditions regarding attendance at trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- each to be disbursed to the complainant.

Buin Urf Gudun Urf Arjun Kumar S/O Sadashiv… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5114 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Buin Urf Gudun Urf Arjun Kumar S/O Sadashiv Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Kant Gupta

¶4

and

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7043 of 2022

¶6

Applicant :- Bhaskar Chaudhary Alias Prabhakar Chaudhary S/O Shri Ram Kishun

¶7

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pallavi Mishra,P.K. Singh Bisen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Kant Gupta

¶8

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶9

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

¶10

The present applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.127 of 2022, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli.

¶11

It is alleged that the accused-applicants and other co-accused firstly assaulted the deceased and, thereafter, he was crushed under the wheel of the Tractor. He was taken to the hospital on 18./19.3.2022, where he died.

¶12

Post-mortem report would disclose the following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

¶13

"1. Contusion 15 cm x 12 cm present on top of back of head at occipital.

¶14

2. Abraded contusion 222 cm x 10 cm present on mid back 10 cm below spine of C7.

¶15

3. On opening ecchymosis present underneath all above mention injuries.

¶16

4. Left temporal bone fractured subdural hematoma present all over the brain.”

¶17

Cause of death is due to ante-mortem head injury.

¶18

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that looking at the post-mortem report and the injuries caused to the deceased, in all likelihood this was a case of an accident and to falsely implicate the accused-applicants out of enmity, false allegations have been made in the FIR. The police after investigating the offence, did not find enough evidence to implicate the accused-applicants for offence under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, charge sheet has been filed under Section 304 IPC against three persons. He further submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the accused-applicants in the trial, this Court may put some cost on the accusedapplicants as a condition precedent for granting bail to them.

¶19

On the other hand, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but not disputed the fact that the ante-mortem injuries noticed in the post-mortem examination of the victim do not match with the prosecution story as set out in the FIR. However, he has submitted that this Court may pass an appropriate order considering the submissions.

¶20

Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, injury report and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed under Section 304 IPC against the accused-applicants, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicants on bail, who have been in jail since 20.3.2022 and 28.3.2022 respectively.

¶21

Let applicants Buin Urf Gudun Urf Arjun Kumar and Bhaskar Chaudhary alias Prabhakar Chaudhary be released on bail in the above case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶22

(i) The applicants shall deposit Rs.50,000/- each (Total

¶23

Rs.1,00,000/-) in the trial court within a period of four weeks from the date of their release, which shall be disbursed to the complainant after due verification. This payment would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the accusedapplicants in the trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

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

¶27

(v) The applicants 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 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 them in accordance with law.

¶28

Order Date :- 14.12.2022/Rao/-

¶29

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.12.14 19:28:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Buin Urf Gudun Urf Arjun Kumar S/O Sadashiv Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buin Urf Gudun Urf Arjun Kumar S/O Sadashiv Yadav v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faiz Khan @ Ziaul Vs State of U.P.

Bramha Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Co.

Anil Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Subhash Lodh Vs State of U.P. through Principle Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Satyam Yadav S/O Moti Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and 3 Others

Avadhesh Verma S/O Sri Raj Narayan (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko