Allowed

Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2023BAIL/14420/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail of the applicant charged with attempted murder and assault. The court found no material to deny bail and imposed standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to seven specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116857

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14420 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Chahar

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the first information report, on 02.02.2023 in the mid night, one unknown person is alleged to have entered the house of the informant and have assaulted the father of the informant with knife, while he was sleeping. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on distress call, the daughter-in-law Savita woke up and went to the room of the father of the informant where she found one person, whose face was hidden, was assaulting the father of the informant. However, when the person saw Savita, he fled away. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the initial stage, story set up in the first information report was that the Savita, who was the witness, had not seen the assailants. Subsequently, on 04.02.2023, the statement of aforesaid witness Savita has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she has stated that the face which was hidden with cloth which was removed when the witness Savita entered the room and as such she has identified the applicant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid statement was recorded on 04.02.2023 by improving the statement in the first information report.

¶9

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim has also identified the assailants in his statement which was recorded on 17.02.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim's statement was recorded after long delay and same is an

¶10

after thought. The applicant is neighbour and on account previous enmity, applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the perusal of the injury report demonstrates that the injuries are not suggestive of the fact that the same would result in homicide. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 05.02.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶11

5.Sri Kapil Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the victim has sustained injuries on the neck and the applicant was identified by the injured as well as the eye-witness Savita. Learned counsel for the informant however does not dispute the fact that the victim has identified the applicant on 17.02.2023, although, the victim was discharged from the hospital on 05.07.2023. It is also not in dispute between the parties that in the first information report, the identity of the assailants was not known. However, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it was stated that witness Savita has identified the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant also could not show that the injuries were of such nature that would result in the homicide.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶14

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶15

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶16

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned A.G.A. that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused

¶17

will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant Devendra Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 29 of 2023, under Sections 452, 386, 307 I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Farah, District- Mathura be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶25

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶26

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

¶27

(vi). The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶28

(vii). In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, he shall inform the court concerned about his new residential address in writing.

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Sumit Kumar

¶31

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

Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar 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

Abu Hurera Vs State of U.P.

Nihal Vs State of U.P.

Mujeev Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Shukla Alias Madnu Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of U.P.