Allowed

Praveen Bharti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2022BAIL/44268/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application in a murder and attempt to murder case, the court found that no overt act was assigned to the applicant. Distinguishing him from a co-accused who fired the weapon, the court observed a lack of convincing evidence against the applicant and granted bail on strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one family member) each, in the like amount, subject to specific conditions of conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44268 of 2021

¶2

Applicant :- Praveen Bharti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Rana,Atharva Dixit,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶4

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. 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- Praveen Bharti , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 366 of 2021, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been assigned the role of going with a filled magazine with co-accused Navin Bharti who was carrying his licensed pistol after which he is said to have caught hold of the deceased Abhishek Agarwal on which co-accused Navin Bharti fired from the said pistol indiscriminately which hit the deceased and he died. It is argued that on the own showing of the first informant / Kajal who is the wife of the deceased, the applicant is residing in front of the house of the first informant and the deceased and as such the story of his being arrested on the spot is a concoction as the applicant is residing in front of the house of the deceased and the first informant which is also shown in the site plan. The co-accused Navin Bharti is also residing besides the house of the applicant. Learned counsel has placed the site plan of the place of occurrence which is at page 54 of the paperbook. It is argued that in so far as the applicant is concerned, no overt act whatsoever has been assigned to him. The role of catching hold is highly improbable as there has been the use of a fire-arm and the chance of the applicant also getting injured by the indiscriminate firing if he catches hold of the deceased cannot be ruled out. It is argued that even the injuries as received by the deceased and noted by the doctor in the postmortem examination report would go to show that the injury no.1 was an entry wound and the injury no.2 was exit of the same whereas there was another injury is on the skull but there was no bullet found. It is argued that in such circumstances, role of catching hold assigned to the applicant is false. The applicant is implicated only because of the reason that he is the brother of co-accused Navin Bharti and his implication is with malafide intentions. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 37 and is in jail since 23.07.2021.

¶8

Per contra , learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report, he has been assigned the role

¶9

of going with co-accused Navin Bharti with a duly filled magazine, catching hold of the deceased and was arrested from the spot but could not deny this part that the house of the applicant is situated in front of the house of the first informant.

¶10

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of coaccused Navin Bharti who has been assigned specific role of firing upon the deceased Abhishek Agarwal. No overt act has been assigned to the applicant.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant- Praveen Bharti , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties ( one of the sureties will be of family members ) 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.2.2022 AS Rathore

¶25

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.08 17:36:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Bharti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Bharti 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

Km. Nisha Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Dubey @ Rajan Vs State of U.P.

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Prema Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another