Allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2023/11283/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application for Ashok Kumar, who was implicated in a murder case (IPC 302) based on the confession of a co-accused. The court considered the doubts regarding the recovery evidence and the applicant's lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions to not tamper with evidence or witnesses and appear for trial.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34335

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11283 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh,Arun Sinha,Ram Prakash Pandey,Vaibhav Kalia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned Addl. Government Advocate-I, Sri R.N.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant, and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant application the applicant Ashok Kumar S/o Sri Devi Sahai seeks bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, under sections 302, 201, I.P.C., P.S. Ganga Ghat, District Unnao.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged on 15.06.2021 against one Vinai Soni, alleging that the named accused's wife was having illicit relation with one Shanu and the accused used to pressurize the informant's brother to restrain Shanu from doing such activities. For the aforesaid reason the accused Vinai called the accused's brother by making a phone-call and thereafter his dead-body was found on the following day. The informant stated that his brother had been killed by the named accused Vinai Soni by gun shot.

¶9

The postmortem examination report of the dead-body mentions two firearm entry wounds on right eye and on right side of upper face, over right ear.

¶10

In the statement of the informant recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. he did not name the applicant. In the statement of the named accused Vinai Soni he stated that he had asked the applicant to accompany him while he was going to eliminate the deceased. He stated that he had called the deceased, made him park his motorcycle at Shuklaganj, took him in his car to a secluded place, got down there. The applicant caught hold of the deceased and named accused shot at the deceased with his . 315 bore pistol and he had hidden the pistol in bushes near the place of incident.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶12

The Police claimed to have recovered motorcycle of the deceased on the pointing out of the applicant. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the material collected during investigation, which has already been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶13

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copies of statement of the informant and two other witnesses of fact recorded by the Trial Court and both of them have supported the prosecution case, but none of the witnesses has stated anything regarding commission of the offence by the applicant.

¶14

Sri Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant, has vehemently opposed the bail-application and he has submitted that the bail-application of the co-accused Vinai Soni has been rejected by means of an order dated 23.08.2022

¶15

passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12860 of 2021. He has further submitted that as per the statement of the named accused Vinai Soni the applicant was involved in commission of the offence. He had caught hold of the deceased and the motorcycle of the deceased has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.

¶16

Replying to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the case set up against the applicant is not similar to that set up against Vinai Soni, who is named in the F.I.R. and who has been assigned the role of firing the gun shots. So far as the recovery is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the location of the motorcycle was disclosed in the statement of the named accused recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and the recovery has been shown on the pointing out of the applicant merely to implicate him. He has further submitted that there are no independent witness of recovery of motorcycle on the pointing out of the applicant.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the facts that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been implicated merely on the basis of custodial confessional statement of the named accused person. Although the named accused has assigned the role of catching hold the deceased, the deceased had suffered two bullet injuries on his eye and face, which raises doubt that any person would be standing holding the deceased, while such injuries were caused, and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 22.06.2021 and the fact that as statements witnesses of fact

¶18

have already been recorded, in case of his release on bail, the applicant will not be in a position to influence the witnesses, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Ashok Kumar S/o Sri Devi Sahai be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, under sections 302, 201, I.P.C., P.S. Ganga Ghat, District Unnao, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶23

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶25

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶26

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 A.Nigam

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Ajay Pal @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Lko.

Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Mannu @ Ayan Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mustaq Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Dayaram Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kashish Malhotra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.