Allowed

Shyam Bihari Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023/6189/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held bail application allowed. Applicant accused of causing death by vehicle accident. Name surfaced later in witness statement. Granted bail pending fulfillment of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Crime No.0257 of 2021 under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC on furnishing personal bond with two sureties of like amount.

Shyam Bihari Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42692

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6189 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Shyam Bihari Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh,Maharaj Baksh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Mukesh Kumar Tiwari,Pankaj Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amrish Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mukesh Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

The FIR in question was lodged against two persons along with unknown person stating that the husband of the informant while returning home was killed by an accident caused by a vehicle. Subsequently, in the statement of one Brij Bhan Singh, name of the applicant surfaced alleging that he was driving the vehicle in question which was involved in the accident which resulted in death. The said statement is on record as Annexure No.11.

¶9

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the said person based upon whose statement, the name of the applicant surfaced i.e. Brij Bhan Singh was present throughout the entire incident i.e. at the time of lodging of the FIR and subsequently at the time of preparation of the inquest report as well as in the statement of said Brij Bhan Singh himself, who stayed along with the body but the name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR.

¶10

The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the informant which states that on the number plate of the vehicle in question, there was a plastic cover as such the number could not be identified, drawing my attention to the said statement, the counsel for the applicant argues that Brij Bhan Singh, who was constantly present, relying on which the name of the applicant was added, mentioned. the vehicle number without disclosing as how he came to know that the offending vehicle disclosed by him, had caused the accident. He argues that a normal accident is being given the colour of an offence under Section 304 IPC. He argues that the applicant has no criminal antecedent, except for an offence under Section 343 IPC for which the applicant is on bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2021.

¶11

The counsel for the complainant vehemently argues that the bail application of the applicant deserves to be dismissed. He draws my attention to argue that the vehicle in question was deliberately misused and was taken over the deceased which caused the death as is clear from the post-mortem report. He thus argues that keeping in view the gravity of offence, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶12

Learned AGA also opposes the bail application by arguing that the nature of injuries disclosed in the post-mortem report reveal the manner in which the deceased had died and thus offence is grievous in nature and the bail application should be rejected. He further argues that the applicant is the driver and owner of the vehicle in question and the vehicle was also recovered from his custody. He further draws my attention to the statement of witness, who has disclosed the name of the applicant.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, what transpires

¶14

is that the applicant was initially not named in the FIR, however, his name surfaced in the subsequent statement of Brij Bhan Singh, who was throughout present from the time of the incident till the post-mortem as stated by himself.

¶15

Without going into credibility of evidence of Brij Bhan Singh at this stage, it is clear that the applicant is in custody since 24.10.2021 and has no criminal antecedent, except for offence under Section 323, 324 IPC and as such there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if any, enlarged on bail can adversely affect the trial and considering the period, the applicant has undergone as, the applicant is enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Shyam Bihari Shukla be released on bail in FIR / Case Crime No.0257 of 2021, under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Munshiganj, District Amethi, on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 KR

¶21

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

Shyam Bihari Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Bihari Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko.

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

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home. U.P.Lko

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Kusum Dubey @ Kusub Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dpett. of Home Lko.

Raja Alias Shivam Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Salman Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko and 3 Others

Jay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow