Application for bail in a murder and murder attempt case. Applicant argued false implication and lack of evidence. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties with conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in like amount subject to specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2378 of 2022
Applicant :- Mundar Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Mundar Lal under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 41 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 147, 149, 342, 120B, 201, 34, 427, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Akil, District Kaushambi, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. 1, Kaushambi vide order dated 20.12.2021.
Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 5.2.2021 has been lodged by father of the deceased under Section 364, IPC against the five named persons stating that his son namely, Rashid Ali has married with co-accused Kavita through court marriage about 11 years back and two children were born out of the said wedlock. His son was resided in Bhilai along with his wife. His daughter-in-law Kavita used to talk with co-accused Krishna Kumar. After receiving such information dispute arose between husband and wife and his wife Kavita has gone at the house of her aunt along with her children in September 2020. On 15.11.2020 co-accused Kavita called the son of the first informant. He reached there by a vehicle Bolaro No. CG 04LK6497 with his friend Bahauddin. Since then the son of the first informant was missing. On inquiry from Bahauddin, he stated that the son of the first informant has been stopped by the aunt of his wife Kavita in Village Tilhapur and after assaulting, they expelled him from the house.
After lodging of the first information report, on 19.4.2021 Investigating Officer has recorded statements of co-accused Ram Babu and Vinod. During the course of investigation, Section 302, IPC has been added and the applicant was arrested
on 8.11.2021. After recording the statements of the witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted on 6.7.2021 against four persons including the applicant and the investigation is pending against six other persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive as well as on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused Ram Babu and Vinod, which have been recorded after five months of the incident. FIR has been lodged after two months twenty days of the incident. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other coaccused without recovering dead body of Rashid Ali. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant as well as other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. No cogent and circumstantial evidence has been collected. It is further submitted that other named coaccused Krishna Kumar, Ram Babu, Vinod Kumar and Ram Prasad @ Audharh have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.11.2021, 8.12.2021, 14.12.2021 & 15.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 37121 of 2021, 38510 of 2021, 33850 of 2021 & 38756 of 2021 respectively.
He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is not convicted in cognizable offence by any court.
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 submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. 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 again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons without recovering dead body of son of the first informant;
(b) Name of the applicant surfaced in the present case on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused Ram Babu and Vinod;
(c) As per confessional statements of co-accused Ram Babu and Vinod, no incriminating article has been recovered;
(d) Co-accused Ram Babu and Vinod have been granted bail by this Court.
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.
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.
Let applicant, Mundar Lal 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:
(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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(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.
(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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
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.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
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.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 8.2.2022 T. Sinha
Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.02.09 11:31:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving sections 302 and 364 Indian Penal Code despite serious allegations.
Whether the absence of the dead body and the presence of incriminating articles in the possession of other co-accused affect the bail grant.
Whether the applicant can be released on personal bond and sureties subject to specific conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ BaliayReferred¶19
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra PradeshReferred¶19
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.Referred¶19
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.Referred¶19
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.Referred¶19
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mundar Lal
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Parties & counsel
