Allowed

Deepika Shukla @ Nitil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2022BAIL/12544/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Deepika Shukla in a murder case pending trial. The court observed that the applicant was not an original FIR name, evidence was sparse, and similarly placed co-accused were on bail. Bail was granted subject to bonds and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court, subject to conditions.

Deepika Shukla @ Nitil Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12544 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Deepika Shukla @ Nitil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Qazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Deepika Shukla @ Nitil for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 02 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Railbazar, District Kanpur Nagar, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and the applicant has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. as the first information report has been lodged on the basis of a written complaint made by Shanu Yadav pertaining to missing of his brother namely Ashu Yadav. However, two days after lodging of the first information report co-accused Sachin is shown to have been arrested by the police and stated to have confessed his guilt wherein the name of applicant and other coaccused persons have surfaced.

¶10

It is further submitted that a 'rope' was also allegedly recovered on the pointing of Kishan Pal from the house of co-accused Amit Gupta. Applicant is not having any concern with the same. It is vehemently submitted that the story which has been cooked up by the police is to the tune that the instant applicant was having relations with the deceased and they were living as husband and wife while the applicant is having illicit relations with other persons also and the deceased used to insist her not to be friendly with others and for this purpose the instant applicant hatched a conspiracy in execution whereof the deceased was called to a place owned by the instant applicant

¶11

and, thereafter, in furtherance of the conspiracy the deceased was done to death by the co-accused persons and the instant applicant.

¶12

Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that apart from the confessional statements of the co-accused persons as well as of the applicant there is no incriminating material or evidence available against the applicant. The recovery of a rope and other material allegedly on the pointing of the other co-accused persons would not be having any bearing on the case of the applicant.

¶13

It is further submitted that alleged executors of the crime namely Kishan Verma and Sachin Verma have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, vide order dated 25.05.2021 and 19.03.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21075 of 2021 and 11437 of 2021. It is also submitted that the case of the co-accused Amit Gupta is distinguishable from the case of the applicant and simply the fact that applicant is shown to have been arrested along with coaccused Amit Gupta that will not make a distinct case of the applicant other than those who have already granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court.

¶14

It is further submitted that with the arrest of the applicant in the instant case i.e. Crime No. 02 of 2021, the involvement of the applicant has been shown in other two cases namely Case Crime No. 124 of 2021 pertaining to Section 3/25 of Arms Act and Case Crime No. 122 of 2021 pertaining to Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and the applicant is not having any concern with the other Case Crime No. 81 of 2021 pertaining to Police Station Shivali, Kanpur Dehat with regard to the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 272 I.P.C. while in remaining three cases the applicant has been granted bail by competent criminal courts. Applicant is in jail in this case since 07.06.2021 and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant but could not confront the fact that similarly placed co-accused persons have been granted bail.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired from the record that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The story as has been cooked up by the prosecution has been severely attacked by learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that apart from

¶17

the confessional statements of the co-accused persons and of the applicant, there is no other iota of evidence/material available against the applicant. Main culprits of the alleged crime is reported to have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Applicant is in jail in this case since 07.06.2021 and charge-sheet in this case has also been submitted. Criminal history of the applicant has adequately been explained.

¶18

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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶19

Let the accused/applicant- Deepika Shukla @ Nitil involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

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

¶25

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.4.2022 Praveen

¶27

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.04.18 17:58:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepika Shukla @ Nitil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepika Shukla @ Nitil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahid@ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Anohter

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P.

Moin Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus Vs State of U.P.

Mahtab Vs State of U.P. and Another