Allowed

Ali Bhejan @ Javed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2022BAIL/34076/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed two bail applications filed by victims of a murder case (one named accused). The applicants alleged false implication and sufficient time spent in custody. The High Court granted bail on personal bond with conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicants Ali Bhejan @ Javed and Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering and court att

Ali Bhejan @ Javed Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34076 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ali Bhejan @ Javed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Connected with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55264 of 2021

¶6

Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for applicant Ali Bhejan @ Javed and Mr. Ashuotosh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶8

These applications for bail have been filed by applicants Ali Bhejan @ Javed and Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Ahraula, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 23.5.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 24.5.2021 was lodged by first informant Vijay Singh Yadav and was registered as Case Crime No. 75 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Ahraula, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., one person namely Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli (applicant herein) has been nominated as named accused, whereas two unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.

¶11

In brief, according to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that named accused Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli along with two others caused murder of Ram Singh Yadav (cousin brother of first informant) by way of throttling.

¶12

After registration of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating

¶13

Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. The inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of the deceased was conducted on 24.5.2021. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest ( panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was homicidal. Thereafter, the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the same day. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

¶14

1. Lacerated wound +nt at right eyebrow approximate 1x1 cm

¶15

2. Contusion +nt at right lower eyelid

¶16

3. Contusion +nt at neck 15 x 6 cm front 7 cm below from chin.

¶17

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses as well as police informer in terms of Section 161 Cr. P. C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli and not named accused Ali Bhejan @ Javed and Shahrukh is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 18.6.2021, whereby aforementioned accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 302, 34 IPC, P.S. Ahraula, District Azamgarh.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants jointly submit that after submission of aforementioned charge sheet, congnizance was taken upon same by Court concerned. As offence complained of is triable by Court of Sessions, accordingly, concerned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 261 of 2021 (State Vs. Pradeep Yadav and others), under Sections 302, 34 IPC, P.S. Ahraula, District Azamgarh came to be registered and is now said to be pending in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Azamgarh. Three prosecution witnesses of fact namely P.W. 1 Ajay Singh, P.W. 2 Smt. Tara Devi (mother of deceased) and P.W. 3 Vijay Yadav have been examined upto this stage. However, aforesaid witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and have, therefore, been declared hostile.

¶19

Mr. Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for applicant Ali Bhejan @ Javed then submits that applicant Ali Bhejan @ Javed is not named in the F.I.R. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He next submits that complicity of present applicant is alleged to have surfaced in the statement of police informer as well as second statement of

¶20

the first informant. Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and therefore, there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. However, upto this stage, none of the parameters laid down by Supreme Court for deciding the case based on circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, are satisfied against applicant. He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to the enlarged on bail.

¶21

It is contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 27.5.2021. As such, he has undergone more than 11 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶22

Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli has also adopted the arguments raised by Mr. Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for applicant Ali Bhejan @ Jave.

¶23

It is then contended that applicant Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 30.5.2021. As such, he has undergone more than 11 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶24

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and accusation made, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the applicants have made out case for bail. Accordingly, bail applications are allowed.

¶26

Let the applicants Ali Bhejan @ Javed and Pradeep Yadav @ Pulli involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each with 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 :-

¶27

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will

¶28

cooperate with the trial. The applicants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶29

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

(iv) The applicants 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶32

Order Date :- 4.5.2022 HSM

¶33

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.05.04 17:59:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ali Bhejan @ Javed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Bhejan @ Javed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ausan Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Pasi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Singh Vs State of U.P.