Allowed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2022BAIL/51065/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Rajeev Kumar in a case of culpable homicide. The Court granted bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the deceased's habitual intoxication, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51065 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, 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 Rajeev Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 384 of 2021, under Section 304 I.P.C., registered at Police Station T.P. Nagar, District Meerut.

¶7

The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged by Smt. Poonam Devi on 29.06.2021 against the applicant is that on 24.06.2021 at about 10:00 pm, the applicant and her husband had some fight between them after which the applicant threw him from the roof on which he died on 25.06.2021. The applicant is a tenant in her house. Her husband Boby received serious injuries.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the version of the first informant are totally false. Her husband was accustomed to consuming liquor. It is argued that there was a dispute between the applicant and Boby the husband of the first informant as the applicant had paid Rs. 4,20,000/- to the deceased for purchase of a house of which the first informant was a witness. It is argued that the applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. There is no use of any arms or any weapon of assault. Even the doctor conducting the postmortem examination was suspecting of the deceased being in an intoxicated condition and as such he has noted in the postmortem report that viscera is being preserved for any intoxication. It is argued that the viscera report is still awaited. It is further argued that the First Information Report has been lodged after a delay of about five days from the incident as the incident is alleged to have taken place on 24.06.2021 whereas the First Information Report has been lodged on 29.06.2021 for which there is no plausible explanation. He further argued that

¶9

the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 04.08.2021.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against him.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the First Information Report is delay by five days. The deceased was habitual to intoxication. There is no use of any arms or weapon of assault upon the deceased.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant Rajeev Kumar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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

¶19

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 229A IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.2.2022 M. ARIF

¶24

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.02.24 15:30:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sufiyan Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Rohini Singh@ Nepali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramakant Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mitthu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Aquib Vs State of U.P.