Allowed

Karru @ Vinit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2022BAIL/474/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder investigation where his implication arose from a co-accused's statement. The court noted the lack of motive, FIR name, or eye-witness testimony, and ordered release subject to strict conditions including attendance and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions ensuring presence in court and no interference with trial.

Karru @ Vinit Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 474 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Karru @ Vinit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 344 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per the FIR version the son of informant was called on 23.08.2021 at about 02.00 in the afternoon by Kanchan Singh on phone whereafter he did not return and ultimately his dead body was found on 26.08.2021. 10 persons are named in the FIR but applicant is not named therein. As per the statement the applicant joined Chandrakesh and other persons in slitting the neck of deceased on account of which he died

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that implication of applicant has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Km. Anjali with whom it is alleged that deceased had physical relations. It is stated to be a case of circumstantial evidence and neither the applicant is shown to have any motive nor he was lastly seen in the company of deceased and he is otherwise not named in the FIR. It is also stated that no recovery is made from the applicant, either. It is urged that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has not been connected with any of the factors relevant for proving the case of circumstantial evidence. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 30.08.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶9

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶10

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence; no motive is shown to

¶11

the applicant and is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced in the statement of co-accused; there is no independent eye witness to the incident; the applicant has no previous criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶12

Let the applicant - Karru @ Vinit involved in aforesaid 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, 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 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.

¶16

(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the 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.

¶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

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.18 16:31:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karru @ Vinit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karru @ Vinit 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

Chandan Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Amit Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Munnalal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Yadav Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others