Allowed

Arun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023BAIL/11136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under Section 302 IPC, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad observed that key witness testimony was doubtful and confessional evidence lacked corroboration. The court noted the absence of an identification parade and forensic linkage of the recovered weapon before granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Arun Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11136 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Pathik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA, for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.379 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, Police Station Wazirganj, District Budaun during pendency of the trial.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged on 18.10.2022 against unknown persons under Section 302 IPC and according to the FIR, father of the informant was going on his motorcycle on 18.10.2022 at about 3.30 PM then two unknown motorcycle riders, who were wearing Helmets shot him dead and after hearing the noise of fire informant and his younger brother, who were working in the field immediately arrived at the spot and after seeing them then assailants ran away. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the informant and his brother immediately taken the injured to the Hospital where the Doctor declared him dead.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation Investigating Officer came to know that one Dildar Harbole was the eye witness of the incident and thereafter he recorded his statement on 19.10.2022 and he also did not disclose the name of applicant although he stated that he is a beggar and he took the lift from the deceased and when he was on the motorcycle

¶9

with the deceased then two unknown persons, who wore helmet opened fire due to which deceased and he fell down and thereafter assailants ran away. He further submits that although the alleged witness Dildar Harbole did not disclose the name of applicant but his testimony appears to be quite doubtful as informant and his brother Vipin also claimed themselves to be eye witnesses and they did not state that at the time of incident Dildar Harbole was also sitting behind the deceased and further as per the statement of Dildar Harbole, he fell down after shot but he did not sustain any injury and, therefore, it appears that he is a planned witness.

¶10

He further submits that after planting, Dildar Harbole as an eye witness, police on 24.10.2022 apprehended the applicant and two others and as per prosecution, applicant and other coaccused persons confessed their guilt and on their pointing out country made pistol which was alleged to have been used in the crime was recovered but neither applicant ever confessed his guilt nor on his pointing out any country made pistol was recovered and there is no report of Forensic Lab which can show that the alleged recovered country made pistol was used in the present crime.

¶11

He further submits that as per the prosecution, from the nearby shops, footage of CCTV was recovered and thereafter on receiving CCTV Footage alleged eye witness Dildar Harbole identified the applicant and the motorcycle but surprisingly applicant was not put for identification parade and further even as per the prosecution, applicant and his associate were wearing helmet and, therefore, identification of applicant by Dildar Harbole is prima facie appears to be totally false.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter

¶13

since 24.10.2022.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that although eye witness Dildar Harbole did not disclose the name of applicant but he duly identified him through CCTV Footage but could not dispute the fact that neither the informant nor his brother Vipin,who also claimed themselves to be eye witnesses ever stated that Dildar Harbole was also sitting along with the deceased behind him on the motorcycle.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

It is a case in which nobody named in the FIR but according to FIR informant and his brother Vipin witnessed the incident and in the FIR it is specifically mentioned that two unknown motorcycle riders opened fire and due to fire opened by them, father of the informant sustained fire arm injuries and died but during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer procured an eye witness, namely, Dildar Harbole, who stated that at the time of incident he was also sitting with the deceased on his motorcycle, but the statement given by Dildar Harbole appears to be inconvincible as informant in the FIR specifically mentioned that nobody was sitting along with the deceased on his motorcycle and he witnessed the incident.

¶17

Although as per prosecution case, during investigation Investigating Officer also procured CCTV Footage and on the basis of that CCTV Footage the alleged eye witness Dildar Harbole identified the applicant and his motorcycle but the applicant was not put for identification parade and even as per the statement of Dildar Harbole, applicant and other co-accused persons were wearing helmet, therefore, identification of the applicant by him also not appears to be convincing.

¶18

Further, as per prosecution on 24.10.2022 applicant and two other co-accused persons were apprehended and they confessed their guilt and on their pointing out alleged country made pistol said to has been used in the crime was recovered but till date alleged recovered country made pistol could not be connected with the present crime as there is no FSL report in this regard on record.

¶19

Therefore, from the discussions made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Arun be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 SKM

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Bhartiya Vs State of U.P.

Smt Lalita Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Suneeta Devi Vs State of U.P.