Allowed

Harpal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2022BAIL/1595/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for applicant Harpal accused of murder under Section 302 IPC. Court distinguished his role from co-accused, noted no role in 'catching hold' in FIR, and released him on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding conduct and trial attendance.

Harpal Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1595 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Harpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Kumar Singh,Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State through Video Conferencing and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Harpal under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2021 arising out of Sessions Trial No.1175 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 504 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffernagar, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 26.06.2021 at about 21;10 hours has been lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging therein that on 26.06.2021 at about 5.30 p.m. when the first informant and his family members were setting and talking near the Hand-pump located near to their residence and in the meantime, Vinay Kumar, who was drinking water from the Hand-pump, sprinkled some water drops which fell upon the applicant, who was crossing at that time. On such issue, applicant abused brother of the first informant Vinay Kumar called his son Rahul and Shubhan whereupon their mother Kaushal came on the spot along with her sons and Rahul took out knife from his pocket and stabbed to the deceased due to which he fell down on the earth. Whereafter, first informant and his family members took him to the Government Hospital, Muzaffernagar where he was declared dead.

¶8

After registering F.I.R in question, inquest proceedings on the body of the deceased has been conducted on 29.06.2021 at about 8.40.P.M. in the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Muzaffernagar for the purpose of Post-mortem of the deceased which was conducted on 29.06.2021 in between 12.40 to 1.15 PM. applicant and other co-accused were arrested on 28.06.2021. During the course of investigation, knife was recovered on the pointing of the co-accused Rahul on

¶9

29.06.2021 from the field of Chandvir. Statement of the first informant, mother and sister of the first informant were recorded on 28.06.2021 and 11.07.2021 respectively. After completing investigation, investigation officer submitted charge-sheet only against the applicant and two other coaccused but exonerated the wife of the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant by the first informant and other witnesses but in the F.I.R., no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that the deceased received only one fatal injury of stab wound 4cm x2 cm x bone deep on his chest. It is further submitted that no eye witness has received any injury. It is also submitted that Kaushal, wife of the applicant was exonerated on the basis of the statement of the eye witnesses.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant has no other previous criminal history. It is lastly submitted that if the applicants released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and he further submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature but he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant;

¶15

(b) deceased has received only one fatal injury as stabbed wound on his chest and no other injury was found on the body of the deceased;

¶16

¶17

(d) injury of stabbed wound caused by Co-accused Rahul;

¶18

(e) case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of the Co-accused Rahul.

¶19

It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in

¶20

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.

¶21

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 , R am 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.

¶22

Let applicant, Harpal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:

¶23

(i) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

(iv) The applicant 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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 case, 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.

¶30

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance of law after the release of the applicant, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2018 SC 2440 , if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

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.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 3.2.2022 aks

Harpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Bajpai Vs State of U.P.

Abhiman Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shyamdei and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ram Samujh Gaur And others Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home) Lucknow and another

Narendra @ Narendra Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.