Allowed

Narendra v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022BAIL/3168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Honourable Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder trial. The court noted the applicant appeared only in a co-accused statement, not the FIR, and lacked incriminating recovery. Finding no convincing evidence of tampering risk and noting other co-accused were on bail, bail was allowed on personal and two sureties bonds with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties to furnish support, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and no tampering with evidence.

Narendra Vs State of U.P. though it Principal… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3168 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Narendra , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 333 of 2020, under Sections 302, 452, 201, 34, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station New Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report which was registered on 30.06.2020 against one person namely Annu @ Anuj. It is argued that subsequently co-accused Gaurav Pandit was arrested who named the applicant as an accused and the applicant was also arrested on 05.07.2020 and as such the name of the applicant surfaced in the present case. It is further argued that although two persons have lost their lives in the present matter but the recovery of the dead bodies is on the pointing out of co-accused Sagar and Mohit @ Mama. It is further argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The only evidence against the applicant in the present case is of his naming by co-accused Gaurav Pandit in his confessional statement to the police which is an inadmissible piece of evidence. It is argued that co-accused Amit Sharma @ Amit Pandit @ Rahul has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18224 of 2021 (Amit Sharma @ Amit Pandit @ Rahul vs. State of U.P.). It is further argued that co-accused Gaurav Pandit has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40165 of 2021 (Gaurav Pandit vs. State of U.P.). The applicant is reported to have criminal history of five

¶8

other cases as stated in para 30 of the affidavit and in all the cases the applicant is on bail. The applicant is in jail since 11.02.2020.

¶9

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has been named by coaccused Gaurav Pandit and as such his implication is there in the present case but could not dispute the other arguments as raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. His name has surfaced for the first time after five days in the confessional statement of co-accused person. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant.Coaccused Amit Sharma @ Amit Pandit @ Rahul and Gaurav Pandit have been granted bail.

¶11

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Narendra , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in

¶17

such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 AS Rathore/e-court

¶23

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.11 17:57:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitaram Vs State of U.P.

Farman Vs State of U.P.

Hariom @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.