Allowed

Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022BAIL/38376/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, considering a bail application in a murder case (Sections 302, 364 IPC), released the applicant on bail. The court noted the case relies on circumstantial evidence, the applicant was an eye-witness in a separate case lodged by a co-accused, and acknowledged the delay in lodging the FIR against plausible explanations.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on the applicant furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount with conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and adjournments during trial.

Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38376 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, 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- Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 103 of 2021, under Sections 302, 364 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

The first information report of the present case lodged on 03.04.2021 by Lokendra Singh against the applicant, Tilak Singh and Vinod Dubey alleging therein that on 29.03.2021 at about 6 PM, co-accused Tilak Singh came to his house and took away his son for playing Holi. Since then his son is not traceable. On 02.04.2021 at about 8 PM, he heard Tilak Singh talking to someone while standing in the courtyard of his house where he was shouting that he has murdered and burnt him. His son was still not traceable. He then asked Tilak Singh about his son who then absconded. On 04.04.2021 the body of his son Kapil Singh was found at the outskirts of the village near bush. The applicant and Vinod Dubey are also involved in the murder. His son has been murdered.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the first information report and the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has named the applicant as one of the accused but the same is on the basis of suspicion only. It is argued that subsequently in the second statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he states that the applicant was having an enmity with his son and used to threaten him. Learned counsel has argued that his implication is on the basis of suspicion only. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The implication of the applicant in the present case is because of the reason that one case was got lodged by co-accused Tilak Singh in which Lokendra Singh was the accused and the first informant and his family members have committed assault with co-accused Tilak Singh in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the first informant and other persons. In the said case the applicant is one of the witnesses. Paragraph 13 of the affidavit has been placed. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and the links in the chain

¶9

are not complete. It is further argued that the applicant has criminal history of four cases for which paragraph 18 of the affidavit has been placed to disclose and explain the three cases and paragraph 19 of the affidavit has been placed to disclose and explain the fourth case. It is argued that as per the prosecution case it is alleged that co-accused Tilak Singh took the deceased from the house after which on the way, the applicant and co-accused Vinod Dubey joined him. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or on the pointing out of the applicant. It is further argued that the deceased went from the house on 29.03.2021 but the first information report has been lodged on 03.04.2021 which is after a period of four days for which there is no plausible explanation regarding the same. The applicant is in jail since 06.04.2021.

¶10

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him.

¶11

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The deceased was taken from the house of co-accused Tilak Singh.

¶12

The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Tilak Singh.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant- Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey , 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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-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 :- 14.2.2022 AS Rathore

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.15 18:00:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Dubey @ Kallu Dubey 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

Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Jaswanti Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. and another

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P.