Allowed

Shivam Deval v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a bail application in a murder case where the arrest relied solely on a confessional statement and weapon recovery without independent witnesses, violating the prima facie mandate of Section 100 Cr.P.C., noting significant trial delay.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to attendance and non-interference conditions.

Shivam Deval Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48143

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 92 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shivam Deval Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.678 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District-Hardoi.

¶9

The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the husband of the informant was killed by her relatives, who were named as accused in the FIR. Subsequently, on investigation, it was found that it was the informant who had got her husband killed along with the applicant with whom she was maintaining relations. The post-mortem report on record indicates fire arm injuries to link the applicant with offence in question. It was shown that applicant has given confessional statement and the recovery of the weapon was also allegedly shown with him on his pointing out.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant argues that the recovery was shown from the applicant after about three days. It was argued that the recovery was not according to the mandate of Section 100 Cr.P.C. as there is no independent witness, thus, the applicant is in custody solely based upon the recovery which is not in accordance with Section 100 Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 29.10.2021 and has no previous criminal antecedent prior to the offence in question. He further argues that the co-accused, the informant, Ruchi patwa has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 15.3.2022, although he does not claim parity with her as she is a lady and one of the grounda was that she is a lady. He further draws my attention that the charge in the case was framed on 19.9.2022 and till 7.7.2023, not even one witness has been examined.

¶11

Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that the applicant was apprehended based upon the recovery of the weapon from the applicant, confessional statement as well as the detailed records which demonstrated that the applicant was present over the said place on the said date.

¶12

Considering the submissions made at bar, it is clear that the applicant has been apprehended solely based upon the confessional statement and the recovery which is prima-facie not in accordance with mandate of Section 100 Cr.P.C. as there are no independent witness, to establish the charge, it is essential that the prosecution links the applicant with the offence in question by doing the recovery in accordance with law, which has not been done. This Court is not going into the evidence at this stage and the same is being seen only on primafacie basis and, the applicant, enlarged on bail is likely to affect the trial adversely.

¶13

Considering the overall submissions and the fact that there is no likelihood of the trial to be completed in the near future, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is in custody since 29.10.2021, as such the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Shivam Deval be released on bail in Case Crime No.678 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District-Hardoi on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.7.2023 -Amit K-

¶19

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

Shivam Deval v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Deval v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sageer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept of Home and 3 Others

Sandip Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sayeed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dhirendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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