Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022BAIL/6282/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal bail application filed by Kuldeep in a murder case. The court noted allegations that the FIR was lodged by brother-in-law and deceased fell from a roof. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including verifying sureties, prohibiting tampering with evidence or witnesses, filing undertakings against adjournments during evidence recording, and expediting the

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6282 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Tripathi,Prabhakar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation against the application that he murdered his father and F.I.R. has been lodged by mother of the applicant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Shyambabu (deceased) was a habitual drinker and one day he fell from the roof of his house, and thereafter, he died on account of injuries sustained to him. The brother of the informant has informed the police that deceased has fell down from the roof of the house, and therefore, suffered injuries and his post mortem is also not conducted. It is further submitted that F.I.R. was not lodged by the mother of the applicant as someone has took signature of his mother on blank paper and lodged the F.I.R. by her name. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 20.03.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶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 and 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 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, Kuldeep, involved in Case Crime No. 44 of 2020, under Sections- 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Rendhar, District-Jalaun, 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,

¶11

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

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial pending against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the grant of bail to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Vibha Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by VIBHA SINGH Date: 2022.09.03 17:05:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

Chandan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajmohammad Shah Vs State of U.P.

Premdas Vs State of U.P.

Hoti Vs State of U.P.