Allowed

Prabal Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sect. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023/3053/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the accused is a fit case for bail in a murder case under Section 302 IPC where prima facie materials suggest a forged FIR and the only prosecutorial evidence is a hostile witness statement, without detailed merit examination.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed and the applicant is released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court with specific conditions.

Prabal Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42261

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3053 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Prabal Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sect. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in F.I.R. No.477/2022, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Kotwali Sadar, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

As per the case narrated in the F.I.R. dated 07.05.2022, there is some dispute between the applicant and his elder brother both were heavily intoxicated and had entered into an altercation with regard to some money. The complainant saw that the applicant i.e. her younger son was sitting over her elder son who was in pain and when she took him to the hospital the doctor declared him brought dead.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the forged F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the statement of the complainant dated 13.02.2023 given before the trial court, the certified copy of the statement has been filed as SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 23.04.2023, wherein she had denied the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the applicant and narrated the true story, in which there is no whisper of altercation between his sons, thereafter the complainant has been declared hostile by the court. The only evidence on the basis of which the applicant was arrested is the statement of the complainant, except that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 08.05.2022.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for

¶12

grant of bail and submitted that as per the F.I.R. and chargesheet filed against the applicant, offences are made out but unable to dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced; perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2022 and considering the law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 10051 of 2022 wherein it has been held that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoid while passing orders on bail applications as while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited, thus, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Prabal Shukla be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(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 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶21

82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 S. Kumar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prabal Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sect. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabal Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sect. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Child in Conflict With Law Thru. Father Md. Raseed @ Raseed Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others

Nazim Thru. His Mother Smt. Saira Bano @ Smt. Sakira Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Mukaddar Ali Vs State of U.P.. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Bhanoo Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Anand Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home. Lucknow

Yogesh Kumar Singh Alias Gopu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy (Home) Gov. of U.P Civil Sectt. Lko