Allowed

Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application of accused Gautam and Pappu. The Court emphasized the absence of specific role assignment and contradictions in the prosecution's witness statement as grounds for release, relying on Article 21 and Dataram Singh.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on executing personal bonds and two sureties each on specified conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 185 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Gautam And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant, who has filed Vakalatnama on his behalf. The same is taken on record.

¶7

This bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicants (Gautam & Pappu) on bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2022, under Sections 304, 504 I.P.C., Police StationSammanpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and village party bandi and regarding some dispute of passage passing in front of the houses of both the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that as per the allegation in the F.I.R. it is alleged that when the complainant/ informant along with family members was sit in the house, the applicants along with their father started abusing and beating the deceased-Rajaram and the daughter-in-law Ranjana by lathi and danda and due to the injury sustained, the deceased Rajaram died in the hospital during the course of treatment.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that general allegation has been levelled against accused applicants. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicants that the applicants have caused injury by which weapon to the deceased. Only lathi and danda has been shown, whereas the injured witness namely Ranjana daughter of Dilip Kumar, the informant has also not assigned any specific role to the present applicants but has made a contradiction that the applicants were beating the deceased with lathi and danda, thus this also falsify the prosecution story. She has also not named the applicants that by which weapon they have hit the deceased, thus three

¶11

persons were show on hitting the deceased, whereas no specific role has been assigned to any of the named accused. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that as per the post-mortem report the cause of death of the deceased is due to ante-mortem head injury with two injuries, but it was not the case of the prosecution that the applicants hit the deceased on head, thus in absence of any specific allegation against the applicants and without assigning any specific weapon that the applicants have caused the injury to the deceased on his head, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required and are also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon them. It has also been pointed out that the accused persons are not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicants are in jail since 04.07.2022 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicants may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and they should also be released on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the co-accused of this case has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12526 (B) of 2022, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicants may also be released on bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶16

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering that the general allegation has been

¶17

levelled in the F.I.R.; no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants that the applicants have caused injury by which weapon to the deceased, only lathi and danda have been shown, whereas the injured witness namely Ranjana daughter of Dilip Kumar, has not named the applicants and any other named accused persons or has assigned any specific role or has assigned any specific weapon, whereas in her statement she made a contradictory statement that the named accused persons were hitting the deceased by Bamboo, where in the F.I.R. it was mentioned that they hit the deceased by lathi and danda, thus there is material contradiction; nor there is any weapon has been recovered from this possession or from the pointing out of the applicants and the same was recovered by the police, if any, and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant-(Gautam & Pappu) involved in Case Crime No. 127 of 2022, under Sections 304, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar be released on bail on their executing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶20

(1) The applicants will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶21

(2) The applicants will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and their personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶22

(3) The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

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

¶24

(5) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure their presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(6) The applicants shall remain present, 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶26

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 6.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Manju Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Secrt. Lko.

Smt. Mithilesh Chaurasiya Vs Central Bureau of Investigation / Acb Hazratganj Thru. Investigation Officer Lko.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. Lko.

Chhote Singh Vs State of U.P. Thur. Cbi/Acu-Vi New Delhi