Allowed

Ved Prakash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2022BAIL/37869/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Ved Prakash, a 62-year-old charge-sheeted accused in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The court allowed the application finding that the applicant has made out a case for bail, considering his age, lack of prior criminal history (except this one), and duration of incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ved Prakash on bail with personal bond and two sureties in like amount upon furnishing specific undertakings regarding attendance and not seeking adjournments.

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37869 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ved Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth,Anil Pratap Singh Raghav,Navin Kumar Srivastava,Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Sunil Vashisth

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. A.P.S. Raghav, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Ved Prakash, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 763 of 2021, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station- Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 11.6.2021, a belated F.I.R. dated 12.6.2021 was lodged by first informant Ashok Kumar Gupta and was registered as Case Crime No. 763 of 2021, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station- Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshah. In the aforesaid F.I.R. a solitary unknown person has been nominated as an accused.

¶10

In brief, the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. is to the effect that on 11.6.2021, Sumit Singh went out of his home at around 6:30 pm to purchase electric bulb. At around 9:00 pm, a call was made on the mobile number of Sumit i.e. Mobile No. 8791336650 which was picked up by an unknown person. This unknown person disclosed that mobile was lying in the pocket of mobile holder and it was ringing. The holder of mobile has sustained gun shot injuries. On this information, first informant and Shiv Ram Gupta elder son of first informant reached the spot, where they found Sumit who was lying dead.

¶11

After registration of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses) the nature of death of deceased was homicidal.

¶12

Thereafter the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. Autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:

¶13

"(i) Fire arm wound of entry size 3.0 x 3.0 cm object (Lt) side of chest 3.0 cm fire (1) nipple (0) 2.0 clock position blackening of size 4.0 x 5.0 cm (+) wound (+) caused margin inverted direction towards (L) side back as exploration 4 th rib of (r) side faud # both lungs bullet found lacerated and about 2.0 Lit. blood (+) in chest cavity.

¶14

(ii) Fire arm wound of exit size 1.0 x 0.5 cm (+) at (d) side back 4.0 cm tnt middle (0) 3.0 O clock position, 12.0 cm below (L) scapula, margin inverted of commicate of injury No. (1)."

¶15

During course of investigation, in the opinion of Investigating Officer, complicity of present applicant came to surface. He according arrested the applicant. On the pointing of applicant, the fire-arm alleged to have been used in the commission of Crime was recovered. Recovery memo of said fire-arm is on record as Annexure-9 to the affidavit. Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer, Investigating Officer opined to submit charge sheet against applicant only. He, accordingly, submitted charge sheeted dated 5.9.2021.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R. Applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. As such, there is no eye witness of the occurrence in question. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the only evidence that has cropped up against applicant up to this stage is the recovery of alleged fire arm, used in the commission of crime on the pointing of applicant. However, the said recovery is false. Same is implanted. There is no public witness of the recovery. As such, same cannot be used against applicant.

¶17

It is then contended that applicant is an old man aged about 62 years of age. No motive can be attached to applicant for committing the crime in question. Apart from above, there is no other incriminating circumstance against applicant in proximity to time and manner of occurrence. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 9.7.2021. As such, he has undergone, more than nine months and 15 days of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶18

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. As such, applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that applicant is an old man aged about 62 years and other factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusations made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Ved Prakash , 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:-

¶21

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶22

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶23

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶24

(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.4.2022 Arshad

¶27

Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.04.27 15:30:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ved Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash 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

Sandeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Talib Vs State of U.P.

Kavita Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P.