Allowed

Munendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2022BAIL/8489/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the bail application of an accused facing charges of murder and dacoity. The court held that despite serious allegations and the Sessions Court's prior refusal, the case presented a fit situation for bail enforcement of personal bond and sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, witness pressure, and appearing in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8489 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Preet Pal Singh Rathore

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. No one has appeared on behalf of the first informant even in the revised call.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Munendra under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 301 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 394, 302, 412, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Budaun during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Budaun vide order dated 06.01.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 19.10.2021 has been lodged by brother of the deceased Shivam against unknown assailants stating therein that on 19.10.2021 at about 09:00 A.M. brother of the first informant Shivam were purchasing grains on Baghol Road Gotha Tiraha then two persons came there by motorcycle and proposed to purchase their paddy crops and, thereafter, three persons came there by motorcycle and committed marpeet with his brother and one person put country made pistol on back of his brother and tried to commit murder of his brother, then the first informant rush to the assailants to save his brother and snatched the country made pistol from one of them thereafter, one of the assailants shot fire on his brother due to which his brother fell down. The first informant took his brother to Government Hospital, Wazirganj by e-rickshaw where he was referred to District Hospital, Budaun but on the way his brother died and the dead body of his brother is lying on the hospital.

¶8

After lodging the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 19.10.2021 at 14:25 hours; postmortem of the deceased was also conducted on 19.10.2021 at 04:45 P.M. As per postmortem report, one entry and one exit

¶9

wound and three abrasions and one contused swelling were found on the person of the deceased. The entry wound of firearm was present over right side of back and exit wound was found over right side of chest and dark black around the wound due to grease and smoke was found on the person of the deceased. After recording the statement of the first informant, Naresh and Pradeep and other prosecution witnesses under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant and four other co-accused persons on 05.01.2022. The applicant was arrested on 29.10.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged against the unknown persons after 4 and 1/2 hours of the incident. The visuals of the CCTV footage was not clear and the same has been shown to the police informer after 8 days of the incident on the basis of which, the police has arrested the co-accused Muneesh and Arun. The name of the applicant surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons. The only evidence against the applicant is the confessional statement of co-accused Munesh and Arun. It is further submitted that in their statements independent witnesses Naresh and Pradeep, who saw the applicant and other four unidentified persons committing dacoity at the place of incident, have not mentioned any date and time of the incident. Except the confessional statement, no other evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant. It is further submitted that the first informant, who was alleged to be present at the place of incident, has not sustained any injury. It is next submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The first information report has been lodged under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of I.P.C. but the charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 394, 302, 412, 120-B of I.P.C.

¶11

It has also been submitted that co-accused, Pintu having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8463 of 2022 and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant

¶13

of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶15

(a) First information report has been lodged against the unknown persons by brother of the deceased after 4 and 1/2 hours;

¶16

(b) The first information report has been lodged under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of I.P.C. but the charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 394, 302, 412, 120-B of I.P.C.;

¶17

(c) After 8 days of the incident on the basis of information received from police informer co-accused Muesh Kumar and Arun have been arrested;

¶18

(d) The name of the applicant has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Muneesh and Arun;

¶19

(e) No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant;

¶20

(f) Co-accused, Pintu having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court;

¶21

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶22

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and

¶23

other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let applicant, Munendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶25

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶27

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶29

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶30

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶32

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶33

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are 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. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at

¶34

its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶35

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶36

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶37

Order Date :- 1.6.2022 Ishan

¶38

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.10 11:35:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munendra 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

Rohit Agrawal Vs State of U.P and Another

Birendra Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna @ Krishna Kant Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.