Allowed

Akhilesh Dubey S/O Pramod Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023/5419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a murder investigation. Relying on a prior order granting bail to a co-accused with a similar role, the court applied the principle of parity and ordered release on bail after fixing strict conditions regarding presence and trial cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of presence and non-misuse of liberty.

Akhilesh Dubey S/O Pramod Kumar Dubey Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5419 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Dubey S/O Pramod Kumar Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Nigam,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 13.8.2021 in Case Crime No. 0314 of 2021 u/s 364, 302, 201, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Ayodhya. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 13.8.2021 has been lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased under section 302, 201 of I.P.C. against Rajesh Maurya and unknown persons stating that on 10.8.2021 brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the informant had gone to school, but he did not return. After that a missing report had been lodged on 10.8.2021, dead-body of his brother-in-law was found in the canal near Kutubpur Fatak and there were some injuries on the head and other parts of the body and Rajesh Maurya alongwith his companions had committed murder of his brother-in-law, because Rajesh Maurya had illicit relations with his sister. It was informed by the deceased to the first informant that twothree years prior to the incident Rajesh Maurya enticed away his sister. After that his brother in law had left the parental house and resided in another place.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report inquest of the body of the deceased had been conducted on 12.8.2021 at 15 hrs at the place of recovery of the dead-body. The postmortem had also been conducted on 12.8.2021 at

¶9

7.50 p.m. As per the postmortem report five injuries were found on the person of the deceased, one is lacerated. Three other are contusions and one bruises. Cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem drowning and time of death is about 2-3 days ago. After recording statements of the prosecution witnesses including the first informant charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and four other persons including Rajesh Maurya on 1.10.2021. The applicant was arrested on 13.8.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. As per first information report all allegations to commit the offence of murder of the brotherin-law of the first informant is leveled against the named co-accused Rajesh Maurya. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the applicant. The Scorpio, as alleged in the investigation, is related to co-accused Rajesh Maurya and weapon of murder (cricket bat) had been recovered on pointing of the co-accused Rajesh Maurya. It is further submitted that except the confessional statement of the co-accused Rajesh Maurya there is no other evidence, circumstantial or direct, against the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.8.2021. The applicant has no criminal history antecedent.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused person namely, Shivnath Yadav @ Bhullar, who has been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1306 of 2022. He also submits that since similar role has been assigned to the applicant and case of the applicant is in parity with the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. He has further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed, there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering the evidence or witnesses.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an

¶13

undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and fact that the co-accused person namely, Shivnath Yadav @ Bhullar, who has been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1306 of 2022, therefore, on the principle of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Let the applicant Akhilesh Dubey, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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.

¶19

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

¶20

proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) 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 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 her in accordance with law.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶23

Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶24

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Om

¶26

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Dubey S/O Pramod Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Dubey S/O Pramod Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Other

Smt. Ram Dulari Alias Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Manorma Devi Alias Manorama Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Chaitu Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. Lko.

Ajay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another