Allowed

Vikas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022BAIL/4201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for Vikas in a murder case under Section 306 IPC. Finding no abetment, instigation, or motive on his part, the court granted bail with strict conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting evidence tampering and ensuring attendance on production dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4201 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Niraj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, 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 Vikas, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 553 of 2021, under Section 306 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor.

¶7

The First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 14.10.2021 by Anil under Sections 302, 120-B IPC against the applicant and four other co-accused persons namely Preka @ Priyanka the wife of the deceased, Guddi the mother-in-law, Lakshman the father-in-law, Vikas the brother-in-law/sala (the present applicant) and Mukesh the brother-in-law/sarhoo alleging therein that Nikul the son of the first informant was married with Smt. Preka @ Priyanka around an year back. The side of the girl were regularly harassing Nikul and there were tension between the parties. There were litigations between them also. On 13.10.2021 co-accused Mukesh who is the brother-in-law (sarhoo) of Nikul took him from his house at about 02:00 pm. On the day of the First Information Report, the first informant received an information from Najibabad Police Station that accused persons have murdered his son.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the brother-in-law (sala) of the deceased Nikul. It is further argued that co-accused Smt. Guddi has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2058 of 2022 (Smt. Guddi Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in so far as taking away of the deceased from his house is concerned, the

¶10

said role is on co-accused Mukesh. It is further argued that as per the First Information Report itself there is no eye witness to the murder. The implication of the applicant is on the basis of suspicion only. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.12.2021.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Smt. Guddi has been granted bail.

¶12

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident there was a marital dispute between the husband and wife. The applicant is the brother-in-law/sala of the deceased. There is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence.

¶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 Vikas , 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

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 229A IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.2.2022 M. ARIF

¶25

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.02.14 17:16:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas 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

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P.

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