Allowed

Shokindra @ kala v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)

Allahabad HC5 May 2023BAIL/13371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC for murder, the Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's release. The applicant, who originally lodged the FIR against his cousin brothers, was later made an accused based on uncorroborated witness statements. Two witnesses subsequently turned hostile. The Court granted bail, noting the applicant's prolonged detention.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted for a bond of personal security and two sureties with conditions regarding court attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and no criminal activity.

Shokindra @ kala Vs State of U.P. though it Principal… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13371 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shokindra @ Kala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home) Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar,Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 154 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Shamli, District- Shamli, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged by the applicant himself and according to the FIR, on 28.3.2021 at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening his brother went in the field but did not return back and thereafter in the night at about 9:00 p.m. his dead body was found and it is further mentioned in the FIR that he is having suspicion over his cousin brothers Dharmendra and Bijendra that they have committed the murder of his brother.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case in which informant subsequently himself was made accused and applicant is the person, who lodged the FIR of the present case with regard to the murder of his brother. He further submitted that after three days i.e. 31.3.2021 during investigation, investigating officer recorded the statement of one Jaiveer and he stated that he witnessed that on 28.3.2021 some altercation was going on between applicant and deceased and thereafter investigating officer introduced two witnesses Vimal and Jagdish and they stated that they witnessed that applicant was inflicting the brick injury on the head of the deceased but testimony of both the witnesses appears to be doubtful as if in fact they would have witnessed the incident then they either tried to save the deceased or immediately informed this fact to the police but both these witnesses remained mum for three days.

¶9

He further submitted that during trial alleged eye-witnesses Vimal and Jaiveer have turned hostile and applicant is in jail since 31.3.2021 i.e. for last about more than two years.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA although, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that out of three witnesses, two witnesses have turned hostile and applicant is in jail, in the present matter, since March, 2021 i.e. for last about more than two years.

¶11

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

¶12

It is a case in which applicant initially lodged the FIR of the present case with regard to the murder of his brother but during investigation, he was made accused on the basis of statements of Jaiveer, Vimal and Jagdish dated 31.3.2021 and according to Jaiveer, he witnessed that some altercation was going on between applicant and deceased.

¶13

Further, other two witnesses Vimal and Jagdish claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and said that they witnessed that applicant was inflicting brick injury to the deceased on his head but they did not immediately either informed the police or any villagers and not even made any attempt to save the deceased.

¶14

Further, Vimal and Jaiveer appeared before the Trial Court and they did not support their earlier version stated in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and during trial both Jaiveer and Vimal have turned hostile. Applicant is in jail since March, 2021 i.e. for last about more than two years.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant- Shokindra @ Kala 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement,

¶20

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.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.5.2023

¶24

KK Patel

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shokindra @ kala v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shokindra @ kala v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)

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

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Seetu @ Amit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tausif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others