Allowed

Om Prakash @ O.P. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022BAIL/39698/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal plea under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a charge of murder (Section 302 IPC), the court granted bail to the applicant. The court found it a fit case for bail considering the complicity and circumstances, noting the co-accused was also released on equal grounds, subject to strict supervisory conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and not seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39698 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash @ O.P. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shankar Yadav,Hasan Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 513 of 2017, under Section302 IPC, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness as well as independent witness of the alleged incident. It has further submitted that the brick alleged to have been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant, which is false and planted. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court towards the statements of the witness Amar Singh recorded under sections 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that the alleged brick was bring by the police. As per the FIR two persons are named including the applicant and the same role has been assigned to both the accused. The applicant is in jail since 18.6.2017.

¶8

It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused Panchhi @ Jagdish Thekedar has already been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 16.7.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 14741 of 2019 therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Om Prakash @ O.P., who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) 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.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) 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 IPC.

¶16

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.11.2022

¶21

¶22

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.28 16:11:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash @ O.P. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash @ O.P. 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

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar Prajapti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aman Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan Vs State of U.P and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.