Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2022/5412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court granted bail to the applicant in a bail application under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, holding that the prosecution case relied on suspicion rather than proof and co-accused granted bail by a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted to release the applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions to ensure appearance and non-tampering.

Bipul S/O Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5412 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bipul S/O Ram Sagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Singh,Ajmal Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Prem Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Bipul for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.007 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkarnagar, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that F.I.R. of the case has been lodged by the mother of the deceased only on the basis of suspicion without there being any material or evidence available against him and the allegations, which have been levelled in the F.I.R., could not be believed. In the F.I.R. it is mentioned that the deceased had enticed away the daughter of one Shiv Kumar and co-accused Reema and thereafter he was not traceable and the informant due to apprehension did not inform the concerned police station. However, it was on 13.01.2022 when she had gone to graze her pet animals, she found the jacket of the deceased in the bushes and also a skeleton in decomposed position and she identified the skeleton of the deceased Arvind Pal from the clothes and belt, which was found around the waste of the skeleton. Apprehension has been shown as the deceased had enticed away daughter of the co-accused Reema and Shiv Kumar that he has been done to death due to a revenge. The postmortem report of the deceased has not found anything significant as the skeleton was in a decomposed position and cause of death could not be ascertained.

¶9

Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that in the F.I.R. only apprehension has been shown by the informant, however, during the course of investigation, investigating officer has recorded the statement of the informant namely Prema Devi, her sister Lalti Devi, brother of the deceased Lallu Pal, Vishal Pal and one Smt. Pramila (sister-in-law/bhabhi of the deceased) and all these witnesses have only stated about the bad blood, which was existing at that point of time between the deceased and family members of the coaccused Reema on account of the fact that the deceased had enticed away the daughter of co-accused Reema and it is also narrated by the witness Vishal pal that he had gone to take flour from the village Mohammadpur Oddarpur, where cousin brother of the prosecutrix/victim (daughter of coaccused Reema) was discussing with some persons that the deceased is not traceable and if his tractor is seized then his whereabouts may be known.

¶10

It is further submitted that apart from the apprehension and suspicion shown by the prosecution witnesses, there is neither any material nor any evidence, which may connect the applicant with the crime and the inculpatory confessional statement of the applicant recorded in the crime while he was in the custody of the police could not be proved against applicant by virtue of the bar contained under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the inculpatory part of the confessional statement of the applicant is ignored and as recovery of any kind has not been affected either from the possession or on the pointing of the applicant, no offence is emerging against the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that co-accused Kuldeep and Reema who were similarly circumstanced and identical role assigned as of the applicant, have already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2022 and 14.07.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 5417 of 2022 and 4672 of 2022 respectively and the case of the present applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the said co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he is entitled for the benefit of the same and to be released on bail.

¶12

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 and he is in jail since 15.01.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no blinking chances of any early conclusion of trial as till date not a single witness has been examined.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and having regard to the manner in which the crime has been committed, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He does not dispute the fact that aforesaid coaccused Kuleep and Reema having similar role to that of accused applicant have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶14

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, considering the fact that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as nobody has claimed to have seen the applicant committing the offence. The circumstances, which have been placed against the applicant, are to the tune that the applicant had enticed away the daughter of the co-accused Reema and thereafter had gone missing. About some days after the applicant had gone missing, the informant is shown to have found the motorcycle and helmet of the deceased, however, she did not inform the concerned police station and thereafter, as per version of the prosecution, she had gone out in a field for grazing her pet

¶15

animal and she found the jacket of the deceased and also a skeleton, which was identified by her by the clothes and belt, which had remained on the skeleton, as of the deceased and all the witnesses, whose statement have been recorded by the investigating officer, are only talking about the suspicion or apprehension and the law is well settled in this regard that the suspicion or apprehension howsoever grave could not take place of proof and also considering the fact that coaccused Kuldeep and Reema having similar to that of present applicant have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant Bipul involved in Case Crime No. 007 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar 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 :-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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 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 the 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 :- 16.8.2022

¶29

GSY

¶30

Digitally signed by GULAB Date: 2022.08.18 15:13:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipul S/O Ram Sagar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doodhnath Pathak S/O Narendra Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home

Gulshan Pushpakar S/O Munna Pushpakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Sandeep Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

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

Ram Samujh Major B.C. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.