Allowed

Khittu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2022BAIL/9873/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of Khittu, an accused in a dacoity case, granting release on personal bond with two sureties. The grant was based on parity with co-accused who were already on bail and the availability of material on record, without determining the merits of the offense. Strict attendance and procedural conditions were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Khittu was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9873 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Khittu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Narayan Singh Kushwaha, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Khittu, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 492 of 2008, under sections 396, 412 IPC, Police Station- Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 24.12.2008, a prompt F.I.R. dated 24.12.2008 was lodged by first informant Kaneej Fatima and was registered as Case Crime No. 492 of 2008, under sections 396, 412 IPC, Police Station- Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj. In the aforesaid F.I.R. five to six unknown persons has been arraigned as accused.

¶9

The gravamen of the allegations made in aforesaid F.I.R. is to the effect that unknown persons entered the house of first informant and thereafter committed dacoti and also assaulted family members of first informant on account of which they sustained injuries. Ultimately, Shamshad husband of first informant died on account of injuries sustained by him.

¶10

After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, complicity of three persons namely, Fida Hussain, Vittu, Bade and Kittu came to surface. Accordingly they were arrested. Thereafter, recovery was made on the pointing of Fida Hussain as well as applicant. Learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is almost similar and identical to aforesaid co-accused Fida Hussain who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12262 of 2010, which reads as under:

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶12

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants were not named in the FIR and thereafter about one and a half month recovery of Kundal has been shown from the possession of the applicants but it has never been put up for identification by the witnesses.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. contended that the applicants were involved in committing dacoity and Kundal was recovered from their possession.

¶14

Perused the post mortem report. The recovery of Kundal has been alleged after one and a half months and the applicants were not named in the FIR. The recovery Kundal has not been put up for identification. The applicants have no criminal history and are in jail since 23.1.2009.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let the applicants Fida Husain and Vittu involved in Case Crime No. 492 of 2008 under Sections 396, 412 IPC Police Station Ganjdundwara, District Kanshi Ram Nagar be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. "

¶17

Co-accused Badey @ Chunney Khan has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.10.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26693 of 2009. Same is reproduced herein under;

¶18

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. And perused the record.

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. during investigation the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the co-accused. No looted property has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no other evidence against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 7.2.2009.

¶20

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Let the applicant Badey alias Chunney Khan involved in case crime no. 492 of 2008 under Sections 396,412 I.P.C., P.S. Ganjdundwara District Kanshi Ram Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. "

¶22

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that case of the present applicant is similar and identical to aforesaid co-accused. He, therefore, submits that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail orders of aforementioned coaccused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-

¶23

accused so as to deny bail to applicant. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶24

Learned counsel for applicant next contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. After the applicant was arrested he has been implicated in subsequent case being Case Crime No. 476 of 2008, in which applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated18.5.2010. Applicant is in jail since 5.3.2009. As such, he has undergone more than 12 years of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.

¶25

It is lastly contended that after submission of charge sheet against applicant, Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2011 (State Vs. Fida Hussain and Others) under sections 396, 4/2 IPC, P.S Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj, came to be registered. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than ten years have rolled by, aforesaid trial has not yet concluded.

¶26

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused. He therefore does not deserve any indulgence of this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶28

Let the applicant Khittu , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:-

¶29

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/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.

¶30

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE,

¶31

WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶32

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶33

(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶34

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶35

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶36

Order Date :- 19.4.2022 Arshad

¶37

Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.04.20 16:31:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Khittu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khittu 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

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhura @ Nishant Arya Bhatt Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Kaushal Vs State of U.P.

Brijkishor @ Birju Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.