Allowed

Devendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2022BAIL/42104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court granted bail to an applicant charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and insult. The court imposed conditions for trial conduct, warrant compliance, and attendance while remitting conditions verification to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42104 of 2022 Applicant :- Devendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

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

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 356 of 2021, under Sections 304, 504 IPC, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh.

¶6

As per prosecution version, it is alleged that on 27.08.2021 at about 7.15 p.m., brother of the informant was taking rest after meat at his house, at that time, co accused persons, namely, Ganeshi and Surajpal came at the house of the first informant and asked his brother Mukesh to come with them as Devendra had called him for some work, and believing on the same, brother of the first informant accompanied them and went to the house of the Devendra and there locked his brother in a room and all the accused persons started committing mar-peet with the brother of the applicant. It is also alleged that co-accused persons, namely, Dushyant hold the neck of the brother of the applicant, and Devendrda (applicant) hold the hand of the brother of the informant and co accused Ganeshi is the person, who assaulted Mukesh with iron rod because of which back bone of the brother of the informant got fractured and co accused Surajpal assaulted the brother of the informant with lathi as a result of which he suffered serious injuries on his head.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that alleged occurrence took place on 27.08.2021 and the FIR was lodged about seven days without there being any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that in the FIR itself, it is co accused Ganeshi who has been assigned the role of causing injuries with iron rod and there is not allegation of causing any injury to the present applicant. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident. It is further submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 304, 504 IPC and all the co accused persons have been exonerated except the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 12,09.2021 and has no criminal history.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶8

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.

¶9

Let the applicant- Devendra Singh, who is involved in aforementioned

¶10

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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.11.2022/RavindraKSingh

¶19

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.21 16:22:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh 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

Kale @ Amir Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra @ Malkhan Vs State of U.P.

Mahendrapal Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P. though Principal Secretary (Home) at Lucknow, U.P.

Kailash Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Gappu Sharma @ Jaideep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.