Allowed

Chintamani@ Munna Mall v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2023BAIL/1086/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court considered the uncertainty of the trial, one-sided investigation, and jail overcrowding under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court allowed the applicant's bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, imposing standard bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, presence in court, and appearance for framing of charge and recording of statem

Chintamani@ Munna Mall Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 14.02.2023 Delivered On:- 21.02.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1086 of 2023 Applicant :- Chintamani @ Munna Mall Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶4

Heard counsel for applicant and learned counsel for informant as well as learned AGA for State.

¶5

There is allegation in the FIR that sons of the informant, Awadhesh, son of Kailash Mall, Anoop Rao, son of Satish Rao, are doing the job of driving tractor for many years. On 24.06.2022 at 07:00 am, Anoop Rao, came at 10:00 am and took his son, Awadhesh, along with him. Thereafter his son never returned. On 25.06.2022 dead body of Awadhesh was recovered near the river. It was alleged in the FIR that the son of the informant has been murdered by Anoop Rao and Amar Rao son of Satish Rao and their other family members.

¶6

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the investigating officer recorded the statement of Reeta Devi wherein she has stated that the deceased was working in his house. He was drunkard but used to work in her house and was living in grove. Ten days prior to his death he has sold his fodder machine and thereafter dispute took place between him and his elder brother, Manoj Mall, and the applicant, who probably is resident of his village. They snatched his mobile phone ten days ago. Deceased informed her about the incident and requested her to get another mobile. She stated that she looked after the deceased well in her house. She further stated that in the murder of his wife the deceased and his family members

¶7

¶8

had gone to jail for 3 years. He was married again but the second wife has also left him.

¶9

The investigating officer has found that the mobile phone of the deceased was not working. His mobile had stopped working since 02.06.2022 and on 08.06.2022 his sim card was removed and new sim card was inserted and mobile no. 9984835733 was working on his mobile shop. The new sim card was again removed on 08.06.2022. However from the C.D.R report nothing was found by the investigating officer. The applicant was arrested by the police on 27.08.2022. Recovery of mobile phone of the deceased was made from the applicant and the applicant confessed that he snatched the mobile from the deceased, Awadhesh on 02.06.2022 and had inserted his own sim on 08.06.2022 and thereafter removed the same on the same day. Because of dispute regarding the mobile phone, he quarrelled with the deceased, Awadhesh. Both were under the influence of liquor and beaten each other when he died he could not know.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no public witness of the recovery and the police has falsely implicated the applicant after exonerating the named accused in the FIR. Against him the informant had not made any specific allegation. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence except his extra-judicial confession. The deceased had dispute with his brother, Anoop Rao and his mother regarding selling of fodder machine. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is in jail since 27.08.2022.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has already filed a counter affidavit and has submitted that from the recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from the applicant it is clear that it is the applicant who caused the alleged offence.

¶12

¶13

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there is no allegation in the FIR that the mobile phone of deceased was not snatched by anyone. In the statement of Reeta Devi, mother of co-accused persons, Anoop Rao and Amar Rao, she has stated that the mobile phone of the deceased was taken by his elder brother, Manoj Pal and Chintamani @ Munna Mall, the applicant. The police has shown recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from the applicant and has implicated him. Except the extra-judicial confession of the applicant and recovery of mobile phone, there is no evidence against the applicant.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicants being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Chintamani @ Munna Mall, involved in Case Crime No. 579 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kasya, District- Kushi Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶18

(ii) 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

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. 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

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(v) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶22

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.02.2023 Rohit

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chintamani@ Munna Mall v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintamani@ Munna Mall v. State of U.P.

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

Dinesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babloo Alias Brajkishore Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Dohare Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waseem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others