This High Court allowed a bail application for an accused charged with murder and culpable homicide. The court relied on settled bail precedents and found the case fit for bail despite the serious nature of the charges, subject to standard conditions.
Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9552 of 2022
Applicant :- Aman Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori,Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Aman Sharma under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 710 of 2021, for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 397 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Sikandra, District- Agra during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Court No. 3, Agra vide order dated 19.01.2022.
Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 22.10.2021 has been lodged by brother of the deceased Ranjit Khare against unknown persons stating therein the the brother of the first informant aged about 45 years, went to Sunny Toyota Mathura Road on his duty as usual on 18.01.2021, when his brother did not reach his house till 10 P.M. in night, he called on his brother's mobile, he informed that he is at Sikandara. The first informant again called him at 11:45 P.M. but at that time his brother's mobile went off. On 19.10.2021 in the morning his brother-in-law Bobby informed the first informant that his brother had been murdered by some unknown person and his body was found in Morena, whereas his Car ETIOS No. UP-83AK-8733 has been found at near Police Chowki, Agra Fort and his mobile phone was found near Malpura Canal, which is presently in the custody of the Morena Police.
Before lodging of the first informant report, inquest proceedings of the body of the deceased was conducted on 19.10.2021 and inquest as well as postmortem report got prepared at District Morena (Madhya Pradesh) on 19.10.2021. As per the postmortem report of the deceased which was conducted by Morena Police at 03:00 P.M. one incised wound,
two contusions, multiple lacerated wound and multiple abrasions were found on the body of the deceased. During the course of investigation, wheel pana, diary, cheque book were found from the joint possession of the applicant and other coaccused persons on 30.10.2021. After recording the statement of the first informant and another prosecution witnesses, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant and other co-accused Arjun Sharma on 12.03.2022. The applicant was arrested on 30.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The first information report has been lodged against unknown persons. It is further argued that the matter purely rests on the circumstantial evidence. The first information report has been lodged after 4 days of the incident. It is further argued that except the confessional statement of the applicant, no other evidence has been collected during the course of investigation with regard to complicity of the present crime. No Call details report of the mobile of the deceased, applicant as well as other co-accused have been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, the alleged recovery of Wheel Pana, diary, cheque book have been made from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused person from an open place without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. There is no independent and public witness of the alleged recovery. It is next argued that the applicant is owner of Aman Automobile Kiraoli and no motive has been assigned against the applicant.
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.
Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant 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.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) The first information report has been lodged on 22.10.2021 against unknown persons. No missing report has been lodged in the present matter.
(b) Except confessional statement of the applicant, no other evidence is on record;
(c) No Call details report of the mobile of the deceased, applicant as well as other co-accused have been collected during the course of investigation prior to arrest on 30.10.2021, the applicant was arrested by the police on the basis of information of the police informer;
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.
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 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.
Let applicant, Aman Sharma 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:
(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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(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.
(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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
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.
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.
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 its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 24.5.2022 Ishan
Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.27 15:41:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to an accused chargeable with murder and culpable homicide despite the rejection of a prior bail application by the Sessions Court.
Whether the condition of lodging FIR against unknown persons and reliance solely on circumstantial evidence is fatal to the grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ BaliayRelied on¶18
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. v. Public ProsecutorRelied on¶18
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan SinghRelied on¶18
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis ChatterjeeRelied on¶18
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh KumarRelied on¶18
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aman Sharma
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Ishan Ja swal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
