Allowed

Lucky @ Lucky Shakya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022BAIL/44135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Lucky @ Lucky Shakya in a murder case. It observed that the applicant was not nominated in the FIR, lacked criminal history, and cooperated with the trial, granting bail subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances and attendance of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail pursuant to a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to six specific conditions ensuring attendance and witness cooperation.

Lucky @ Lucky Shakya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44135 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lucky @ Lucky Shakya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lihazur Rahman Khan,Sonakshi Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2020, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station- Narora, District- Bulandshahr.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report and his name has surfaced for the first time in the confessional statement of co-accused Sandeep. Thereafter, after framing of the charge, statement of the witnesses have been recorded during the course of trial but none of the said witnesses have nominated the applicant as an accused to have fired upon the deceased. As per the statement of Binnani, who is said to be present at the time of incident, has stated that he can only identify co-accused Akash to be present at the time of incident, however, the other witnesses have not nominated the applicant as an accused. P.W.-3- Gyan Prakash is the brother of the deceased and has categorically stated that he had not seen any person entering in the shop and making their escape good. Even P.W.-7- Krish, who is the son of the deceased and was present at the shop at the time of incident, has stated that three persons came at his shop and after some dialogue with his father opened fire which hit the victim on his chest and hand, who later succumbed to his injuries, however he has not nominated the applicant as an accused.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that coaccused Akash, who has been identified by Binnani (P.W.-1), has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 42274 of 2022 and co-

¶10

accused Deepu @ Deepak Khankar has also been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1183 of 2022 vide order dated 4.11.2022 respectively. The recovery of fire-arm from the possession of the applicant is false and planted. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 21.12.2020 and has regularly been cooperating in the process of trial and as such, he be released on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that even in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of trial, nobody has nominated the applicant as an accused and the accused- Akash has already been granted bail.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that applicant is not nominated as an accused in the first information report and later on the basis of confessional statement, his name has surfaced, however during the course of trial the statement of both the eye witnesses has been recorded, however they have not specifically nominated the applicant as an accused. Co-accused Akash, who has been identified by Binnami, has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the applicant stands on the better footing as that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail. Furthermore, the applicant is in jail since 21.12.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit and has regularly been cooperating in the process of trial. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that prima facie applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Lucky @ Lucky Shakya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶15

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

¶16

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶17

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 her in accordance with law.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.11.2022 KU

¶23

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.21 16:11:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lucky @ Lucky Shakya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky @ Lucky Shakya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amjad Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Ishwari Dayal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Alias Neera Vs State of U.P.

Ekhlak Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another