Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2022BAIL/4527/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by Vijay Kumar, accused of murder, was allowed by the High Court due to jail overcrowding despite allegations of false implication. The court imposed strict conditions to ensure prosecution presence and prevent evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and non-interference with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4527 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neelabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The applicant lodged the FIR against three named accused persons, namely, Poonam Devi, Kedar Singh and Dilip, regarding commission of offence of murder of his sister.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the police has falsely implicated the applicant as an accused in this case. Recovery of ornaments worn by the deceased has been shown to have been made from him along with his brother, Shiv Kumar. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the ornaments of the deceased were kept by her in her parental house from where recovery was made. Since the applicant is the brother of the deceased he has been falsely implicated at the behest of members of matrimonial home of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 27.09.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit. Co-accused, Shiv Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21145 of 2022.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Vijay Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.

¶11

212 of 2021, under Sections- 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Ramghat, District- Bulandshahar, 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.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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. 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 him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.10.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶20

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.10.22 18:57:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boby Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Viklesh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anees Vs State of U.P.

Anshu Yadav @ Sanjiv Vs State of U.P.

Risabh (Rishabh) @ Amit Vs State of U.P.