Allowed

Bhupendra and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2022/8707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by three applicants facing charges under Sections 308, 323, and 504 of the IPC. The court held that the case was a fit case for bail, appointing personal bonds and sureties while imposing strict conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and prohibition of fu

Bhupendra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8707 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bhupendra And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Lalji Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Hari Shankar Bajpai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants Bhupendra, Kaushal and Bablu under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 178 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 308, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Sadarpur, District- Sitapur during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is general allegation of marpit has been assigned to the applicants and other co-accused persons. As per allegation of the first information report as well as statement of the injured persons Arjun (first informant), Manju Devi and Smt. Jagdei, no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicants. It is further submitted that as per medical report of the Smt. Jagdei, one lacerated wound is found on the head which is muscle deep. It is further submitted that no supplementary report has been collected during the course of investigation. It is next contended that there is no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicants. The alleged recovery one lathi has been made form the joint possession of the applicants without complying the mandatory provision of Section 100 of Cr.P.C.

¶9

It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to their credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility

¶10

of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicants, who are languishing in jail since 08.06.2022, undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

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 applicants 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. However, learned counsel for the first informant submits that the injured have not identified the assailants. 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let applicants, Bhupendra, Kaushal and Bablu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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:

¶15

(i) The applicants 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 their from disclosing such

¶16

facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

(iv) The applicants 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

Order Date :- 25.8.2022 Ishan

¶29

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.08.29 10:09:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhupendra and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. 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

Keshav Ram Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Nippu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Arjun Rawat Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Purushottam Kesarwani @ Bauwa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.