Allowed

Amardeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023BAIL/10861/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a second bail application filed by Amardeep in a double murder and rioting case. The court granted bail after noting that a prosecution witness could not identify who dealt the fatal blow with a spade and no convincing material indicated tampering with evidence. The applicant was released on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions regarding evidence tampering, court attendance, and trial participation.

Amardeep Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157304

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10861 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Amardeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Ramanuj Saini,Ravendra Singh,Shamsher Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Jadaun,Sandeep Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This is second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Amardeep, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 116 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 34 IPC. P.S Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat.

¶9

The prosecution story in brief is that 05.05.2020 at about 4.00 PM. the informant has parked the tractor trolly out side the village by the side of the road, thereafter the co-accused Manveer came and told him to remove the same. On this the informant stated that he would remove the said tractor trolly after the second tractor comes and there after the co-accused Manveer went home. After some time the co-accused along with other co-accused Bhushan @ Brijbhushan came and threatened with different weapons Farsa, lathi, Balkati and attacked upon informant and others. In the said incident the many persons sustained injuries and one Bhopal Singh declared dead on the same day and thereafter on 09.05.2020 on injured Kaluram has also lost his life due to his injuries.

¶10

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. In the present case there is allegation against the applicant and 14 other named accused

¶11

regarding forming of illegal assembly with common object and committing the offence of rioting, attempt to murder and also murdered with common intention. Next argued that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Two persons have suffered injuries and died. Similarly place applicant Amardeep and and coaccused Bhushan @ Brijbhushan, had already been enlarged on bail by the another bench of this court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30360 of 2020 on 23.11.2020 but the same has been cancelled by the Apex Court vide order dated 05.03.2021. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that trial has already begun and one prosecution witness has been examined before the trial court and during trial the P.W. 1 Rishipal son of the deceased, has admitted in his cross-examination that he could not see as to who caused murder of his father by the spade which hit on the head of his father (deceased). No specific allegation is there against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2021 having no criminal history.

¶12

Initially, the the first bail application of the applicant and another co-accused Bhushan @ Brijbhushan has been allowed by this court but against the said order the informant of this case approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the Crl. Appeal No. 271 of 2021 (arising out of SLP. (Crl) No. 391 of 2021 filed by him has been allowed, and bail granted to the applicant and coaccused has been cancelled vide order dated 3.5.2021.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but admitted the fact that during trial P.W. 1 Rishipal who is son of the deceased has admitted the fact that he has not seen as to who caused the spade blow on his father (deceased).

¶14

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the

¶15

applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Amardeep, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶21

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 4.8.2023

¶26

RPD

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amardeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amardeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhveer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tushar Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amarjeet Nishad Alias Mitthu Vs State of U.P.

Heena Khan Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Pandit Vs State of U.P.

Hari Lal Vs State of U.P.