Allowed

Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022/5683/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Misc. Bail Application. The applicant moved for bail in a case alleging culpable interment support/abetment. The Court observed no specific allegations against him in the FIR and the main accused were on bail. Bail granted.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties.

Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5683 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Pleadings are complete and have already been exchanged between the parties.

¶7

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

¶8

The applicant, Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto , has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2022, under Sections 306, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Sohramau, District Unnao.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the son of the first informant Renil Verma was taking coaching class and staying in the house of the co-accused, Suresh Kumar and was wanted to marry his daughter Roshni and he has said to have told his mother on 22.02.2022 that he is coming to village along with Roshani. On 01.03.2022 the informant received an information from police station Kheri that Renil has expired in an accident. He took the dead body of his son and performed his last rites and came to police station Soharamau on 04.03.2022 and after perusing the post-mortem report he found that death has been caused by hanging and suspected Roshni's family members for the said offence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence against the applicant by which it can be said that he has committed any crime in any manner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there was a proposed marriage settlement between the aforesaid coaccused's daughter, Km. Roshni, and the deceased. It is because of the opposition of the family members, the marriage could not take place. In such a situation, if the deceased committed suicide then the applicant cannot be held responsible. The

¶12

applicant is stated to have assigned the role of taking an Omni car of the co-accused, Suresh Kumar, to dispose of the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant placed much reliance upon the statement of applicant wherein he has stated that they are taking an ill person to the destination. The daughter of co-accused had love affair with the deceased. The post-mortem report of the deceased indicates that there is only one ante mortem injury of ligature mark of size 26 cm x 2 cm present in front of neck below chin above thyroid cartilage and cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the named accused, Km. Roshni alias Pratima and her father, Suresh Kumar against whom allegations were made by the informant, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6731 and 6436, both of the year 2022. The case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, Km. Roshni alias Pratima and Suresh Kumar, who have been assigned the main role and have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant should also be released on bail by this Court sympathetically on the ground of parity.

¶14

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-14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 29.03.2022 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no blinking chances of any early conclusion of trial.

¶15

Learned A.G.A.-I while has opposed the prayer for bail of applicant, but has not disputed that the main accused, Km. Roshni alias Pratima, has been enlarged on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

evidence, considering the fact that the main and named accused, Km. Roshni alias Pratima and her father Suresh Kumar have already been granted bail; no specific allegation is made against the applicant in the F.I.R., no incriminating evidence is against the applicant to show his involvement in the commission of crime, and 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant, Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto, involved in Case Crime No. 30 of 2022, under Sections 306, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Sohramau, District Unnao, 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 :-

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 10.8.2022 Mustaqeem

¶31

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.08.12 11:52:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithlesh Kumar @ Pinto v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Deepak Kumar Major Bail Cancellation Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Alias Opendra Yadav S/O Raj Kishor Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Abdul Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Ritesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav S/O Sri Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Shanti Devi W/O Rakesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home