Allowed¶16

Gorelal and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2022BAIL/11664/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11664 of 2022, Gorelal and Surendra v. State of U.P., decided 4.4.2022 by Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. Bail granted under Section 302 IPC (Case Crime No. 187 of 2021, P.S. Maharajpur, Kanpur Nagar) on the ground of two-month delayed implication via an additional Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, absence of criminal history and custody since 17.10.2021; conditions imposed including non-tampering, cooperation in trial and no criminal activity; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Gorelal and Surendra to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount, subject to the stated conditions; identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties to be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Gorelal and Another Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicants Gorelal and Surendra, in custody since 17.10.2021 in Case Crime No. 187 of 2021 under Section 302 IPC, deserve to be released on bail during trial.

¶16

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity, severity of punishment and the parties' submissions — including that the prosecution story emerged only after about two months through an additional Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the applicants had no criminal history and were in jail since 17.10.2021 — the court held that the applicants had made out a case for bail.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The applicants were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions of not tampering with prosecution evidence or intimidating witnesses, sincerely cooperating in the trial without seeking adjournments, and refraining from criminal activity; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Murder (Section 302 IPC), P.S. Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar (Case Crime No. 187 of 2021): FIR lodged against unknown persons; the informant's additional statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded after about two months, first named the applicants, with no earlier disclosure by him or by the other stated eyewitness Neelesh; applicants in jail since 17.10.2021, no criminal history, charge sheet filed. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. allowed bail on a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11664 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gorelal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prasad Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter.

¶6

Heard Shri R.K. Kanaujiya, learned counsel for the accused/applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants- Gorelal and Surendra for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 187 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC.,Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicants have falsely been implicated in the instant case and they have not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

It is further submitted that the FIR of the incident was lodged by the informant, namely, Narendra Paswan on 1.7.2021 stating therein that on 19.6.2021 at about 1.00 P.M. his brother had gone to the agricultural field, however, his dead body was found lying in the field at about 3.00 P.M. and the mud of the field was also found in his mouth. However, no one was named in the FIR.

¶10

Referring to the first information report, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that neither the First Information Report was lodged by Narendra Paswan nor in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. no allegation of any kind was imputed against the instant applicant. However, it was after two months of the incident in his additional statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 20.9.2021 the informant had developed a story that he had seen the applicants going towards the field where the deceased had earlier gone and they saw the applicants strangulating the deceased and a new theory has been developed with regard to the fact that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the mother of the applicants on account of this enmity deceased was done to death.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the informant had not disclosed any such apprehension either in the First Information Report or even in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. earlier. Even the other eye witness, namely, Neelesh who is also stated to have seen the occurrence has not gathered the courage to reveal the story as narrated by the informant to any other person including the Investigating Officer in the period of two months.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the story as cooked up by the informant in his additional statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not be believed as the same has been stated with a considerable delay and no explanation of the delay has been given.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 17.10.2021. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicants after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail as also the applicants are not having any criminal history.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but of the applicant on the ground that he has committed heinous offence and therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the FIR of the instant case was lodged against unknown persons. The statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has not imputed any allegation against the instant applicants. However, it was after two months of lodging the First Information Report it is stated by the informant that he and his nephew, namely, Neelesh had seen the applicants strangulating the deceased. It is vehemently submitted that the story developed with a delay of two months could not be believed as the same is after thought. The applicants are in jail in this matter since 17.10.2021. They are not having any criminal history. The presence of the applicants could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicants- Gorelal and Surendra involved in the

¶18

aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.4.2022 Muk