Allowed

Kurendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023BAIL/14171/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a repeat bail application, the Allahabad High Court examined the production of hostile prosecution witnesses, including the first informant. Noting that the witness depositions had failed to support the FIR and the applicant had already served over two years, the court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Kurendra Pal Singh on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions preventing tampering or delay of trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189030

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14171 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kurendra Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicantKurendra Pal Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2021 under Section 302, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kamalganj, District-Farrukhabad.

¶10

First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23625 of 2022 (Kurendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

¶11

"1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for State.

¶12

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2021, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kamalganj,

¶13

District Farrukhabad.

¶14

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., and after perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶15

4. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶16

5. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, preferably within eight months in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment."

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to order dated 17.10.2022, the trial of the applicant alongwith other coaccused commenced before court below by way of Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Sevak and others). Upto this stage, seven prosecution witnesses have been adduced before court below. Out of seven witnesses so deposed there of the prosecution of fact including the first informant have not supported the F.I.R. As such, they have been declared hostile. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that once the first informant himself has not supported F.I.R. during pendency of trial no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicant. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit

¶18

except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 08.09.2021. As such, he has undergone more than two years of incarceration. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.

¶19

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed this repeat application for bail. He submits that applicant is not only a named/charge sheeted accused but also the author of the fatal gun shot injury sustained by the deceased. He therefore submits that applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the legal and factual submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that seven prosecution witnesses have been adduced before court below, out of seven prosecution witnesses, who have so deposed, there are three prosecution witnesses of fact including the first informant who have not supported the F.I.R., therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶21

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Kurendra Pal Singh involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being

¶23

imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶24

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶25

(ii) 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.

¶26

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶27

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶28

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 of applicant and send him to prison

¶29

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 YK

¶30

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

Kurendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurendra Pal Singh 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

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Alias Madan Vs State of U.P.

Munnesh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Imran Anshari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devanand Vs State of U.P. and Another