Allowed

Gaurav Bhardwaj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022BAIL/55023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Gaurav Bhardwaj in a murder case. The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail due to incomplete evidence and blindspot investigation. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two local sureties subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55023 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Bhardwaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rajeev Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Gaurav Bhardwaj with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under sections 342, 364, 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Chhata, District- Mathura during pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, an FIR has been lodged on 12.03.2022 at about 19:41 hours stating that the informant's father was a Clerk in the district judgeship and he sent money in his account from time to time. It is alleged that a telephone call was received on 06.03.2022 at 01.30 AM in which it is stated that father of the informant has been kept in confinement by Dinesh Chaudhary and Sachin Chaudhary, who wanted return of their amount. Subsequently, name of Ramu also surfaced in commissioning of the offence. The missing report has been lodged regarding father of the informant but he has not been traced so far and even his dead body has not been recovered.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the implication of applicant has surfaced on the basis of call records evidencing various calls made by the applicant with co-accused Dinesh, who happens to be the uncle of his wife. Submission is that apart from the CDR the only evidence against the applicant is in the nature of confessional statement which cannot be read and no recovery has otherwise been made from him. Argument is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence in which chain of events have not been completed by the prosecution so as to point towards hypothesis of guilt against the applicant. It is further argued that custodial interrogation is no longer required as the charge sheet has been submitted and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial. He further submits that there is recovery of

¶9

Danda shown from the pointing out of the applicant, which is planted. He further submits that co-accused persons Praveen Saurat, Amit Faujdar and Monu Kuntal have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 11.11.2022, 18.11.2022 and 14.11.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 44912 of 2022, 33521 of 2022 and 44594 of 2022 respectively and the case of the applicants stands of identical footing, hence, the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 05.04.2022 and has no prior criminal history. It is also contended that dead body of the missing person has otherwise not been found and, therefore, it is not clear that the missing person is died or alive.

¶10

Learned AGA opposes the prayer for grant of bail by contending the the implication of applicant has been surfaced during the course of investigation.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) 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

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) In case the applicant misuse 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

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶17

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 are 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.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.12.2022 Arti

¶20

Digitally signed by ARTI SHARMA Date: 2022.12.03 15:43:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav Bhardwaj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Bhardwaj 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

Praveen Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Joshi Vs State of U.P.

Priyanshu Gaur @ Pisu Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Devi@ Asha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Khalid Vs State of U.P Thru, Secretary(Home) at