Allowed

Mor Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2022BAIL/6459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of Mor Singh in a murder case (Section 302 IPC) pending trial. The judgment granted bail by expressing no opinion on the merits, citing the significant delay in lodging the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of the bail application with the applicant released on bail subject to conditions, including surrendering to the trial court on specific dates.

Mor Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6459 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mor Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Ram Raj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Rastogi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2021, under Sections 328, 302 IPC, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the F.I.R. of the present case was lodged by the wife of the deceased after more than five months and merely on the basis of suspicion applicant along with two others named in the F.I.R.. He further submits that father of the deceased namely Dal Chand moved an application on 29.03.2021, which was registered at the police station vide G.D. dated 29.03.2021 (annexure no. 2). According to the G.D., father of the deceased only provided application regarding the death of his son under suspicion circumstances. It is further submitted that after post-mortem when cause of death could not be ascertained then viscera was preserved and viscera report shows that death was caused due to administration of poisonous substance. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record which can show the applicant administered the above poison to the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2021 and the applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that information was given by father immediately after the incident at police station concerned but at that time he was not aware that who was taken the deceased, therefore, he did not name the applicant in the application dated 29.03.2021. It is next contended that in the F.I.R. there is specific allegation that applicant along with two others taken away the deceased on 29.03.2021 and immediately thereafter, deceased died under suspicion circumstances and later-on it was revealed that poisonous substance was administered to him, therefore, present bail application is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case, F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 16.08.2021 by the wife of the deceased whereas incident is said to have taken place on 29.03.2021, therefore, the F.I.R. of the present case is highly delayed and was lodged after about four months and informant failed to provide any proper explanation of the delay in lodging the F.I.R.. It is alleged that applicant was taken away the deceased on 29.03.2021 along with two others and same day deceased was done to death but the father of the deceased did not disclose this fact in his application dated 29.03.2021 and further informant did not lodge the F.I.R. immediately. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

¶10

the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant- Mor Singh 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 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 229-A IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.3.2022 Sanjeet

¶21

Digitally signed by SANJEET KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.03.29 10:29:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mor Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mor Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P

Saarif @ Sharif Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.