Allowed

Anil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022BAIL/3345/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court observed that the applicant's role is distinguishable from the principal accused who fired the fatal shot. Finding no material to suggest tampering with evidence, the Court released the applicant on bail subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid case upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Anil Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3345 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, 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- Anil , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case No. 24524 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 242 of 2021, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Alapur, District Budaun.

¶7

The first information report of the present case was lodged on 18.08.2021 by Jagveer alleging therein that his brother Nar Singh was at the roof of the house at about 08:30 PM when the accused persons came there and there was some fight between them. His brother told them not to abuse him on which the accused persons said that he may be shot after which coaccused Harish Chandra fired from his country-made pistol which hit the chest of his brother who was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per the postmortem examination report, the deceased has received a firearm wound which has an exit and there is one contusion also noted by the doctor. The cause of death has been opined as shock and haemorrhage due to firearm injury. It is argued that in so far as the applicant is concerned, he is not assigned the role of firing upon the deceased. The role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Harish Chandra. The deceased has died due to the said firearm. It is argued that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Harish Chandra. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 4 and is in jail since 25.08.2021.

¶9

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that co-accused Harish Chandra has been assigned the role of firing upon the deceased which hit him on his chest. The cause of death is firearm injury.

¶11

The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of coaccused Harish Chandra.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Anil , 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 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 229-

¶19

A IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 AS Rathore

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.11 16:44:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

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.

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

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.