Dismissed¶12

Shiv Kumar@ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Bail rejected – S.439 CrPC – Shiv Kumar @ Rinku

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022BAIL/4590/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.) rejects S.439 CrPC bail application of Shiv Kumar @ Rinku in Case Crime No.146 of 2021, PS Khair, Aligarh, under Ss.364-A, 302, 201, 34 IPC (kidnapping for ransom and murder); body buried near river recovered on pointing out; charge-sheet filed; custody since 26.03.2021; decided 15.2.2022.

What did the court decide?

On the record, the deceased was taken and ransom was demanded, and the dead-body buried near a river was recovered on the pointing out of the accused persons; the matter is serious in nature. ¶11

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4590 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar@ Rinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sanehi Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav, 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-Shiv Kumar @ Rinku seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.146 of 2021, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh.

¶7

The FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 364-A IPC on 24.03.2021 by Shaudan against unknown persons stating therein that on 22.03.2021 at about 6 p.m., his brother's son Surendra Pal went to guard his crops but did not return back. He called on his mobile which was switched-off. He was searched but could not be located. On 23.3.2021, he was searched at relatives places where also he could not be located. In the afternoon at about 1.45 hours a message was received on the phone of his niece that Rs.20 lakhs be given as ransom money within two days and be kept in a train going towards Hyderabad. There was even threat that if police is informed then Surendra Pal will be murdered.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. although reiterated the version of the FIR but had cast suspicion upon Bhupendra resident of village being involved in the matter on the ground that the deceased Surendra Pal and Bhupendra had consumed liquor on the day of incident. Subsequently Bhupendra was arrested by the police who disclosed the name of the applicant in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the present case in the confessional statement of co-accused Bhupendra. The applicant is not involved in the matter. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder of the deceased. The applicant is doing private job in State of Haryana and has no concern with

¶9

the deceased. It is argued that during the investigation, Section 302, 201 and 34 IPC have been added. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.03.2021.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has been made as an accused during the investigation. The matter is such in which name of the accused could only come during investigation. The deadbody of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and three other co-accused persons who took the police to the place where they had buried it. Even there is an allegation of demand of ransom and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased has been murdered. The charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons, as such the implication of the applicant is there.

¶11

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased was taken and ransom was demanded, subsequently the dead-body of the deceased which was buried near a river was recovered on the pointing out of the accused persons. The matter is serious in nature.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶13

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 15.2.2022 Gaurav

¶15

Digitally signed by GAURAV KULSHRESTHA Date: 2022.02.15 18:08:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar@ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar@ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Yuvraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Anita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.