Dismissed

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023BAIL/18106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under Section 302 IPC, the Allahabad High Court rejected the prayer. Despite applicant's reliance on inquest report inconsistencies, the court found no good ground to enlarge him on bail given the gravity of the murder charge and lack of record establishing the alleged timeline discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Bail application filed by Sunil Kumar is dismissed and rejected.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136501

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18106 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh,Vijay Bahadur Shivhare

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Instant bail application has been filed by applicant- Sunil Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2022 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Kakarbai,, District-Jhansi, now pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhansi.

¶10

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.05.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 18.05.2022, was lodged by first informant-Bhopal Singh Parihar (the brother of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 38 of 2022 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police StationKakarbai,, District-Jhansi. In the aforesaid F. I.R., applicant Sunil has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶11

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that first informant received an information on 17.05.2022 from one Raghvendra @ Guddu to the effect that

¶12

applicant Suil has fired a shot from country made pistol which hit younger brother of first informant at around 6.30 PM. On the basis of said informant ion, the injured was taken to Hospital where he was declared dead. Thereafter, inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was characterised as homicidal. Subsequent to above, the post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy of the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage due to firearm injury.

¶13

The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

¶14

i. Entry wound size 1 cm. x 0.8 cm over in shape on Lt. forearm lateral aspect margins contused and charring and blackening present.

¶15

II. Exit wound size 3 cm. x 2 cm over Lt. forearm medial aspect margins are aderted and lacerated.

¶16

III. Entry wound size 1 cm x 0.8 cm oval in shape on Lt. side of chest blow inter corpel area margin confused charring and blackening present.

¶17

Iv. Exit wound size 3 cm. x 105 cm oval Rt. Guttural area lateral to anus margins are lacerated over pack.

¶18

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined various witnesses namely Bhopal Singh, Raghvendra Singh @ Guddu, Sukhdeo Singh, Ramji Parihar, Abhilakh Singh Parihar Majid, Devendra Singh,Smt. Ruby and Smt. Sheela. One of the eye witness so examined namely Rahgvendra Singh @ Guddu in his statement before Investigating Officer has not only detailed the manner of

¶19

occurrence but also implicated the present applicant in the crime in question.

¶20

On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is fully established. He therefore opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 17.08.2022

¶21

After submission of aforementioned charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Magistrate. Sincc the case was triable by the court of sessions. Resultantly, concerned Magistrate committed the case of Court of Sessions. As a consequence of above, Session Trial No.764 of 2022 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar) came to be registered.

¶22

10.Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. He has invited the attention of Court to the inquest report (panchnayatnama) and on basis thereof, he contends that the ward boy had given information that an injured was admitted to the hospital on 13.05.2023. On the basis of aforementioned recital contained in the inquest report the very credibility of the F.I.R. Learned counsel for applicant contends that the decead had sustained injuries before and was getting treatment elsewhere. Thereafter the injured was brought to Medical College Jhansi where he died. On the above premise, he 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 the trial. 11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that argument raised by learned counsel for

¶23

appliant applicant is wholly misconceived inasmuch as there is nothing in the case diary to show that injured had sustained gun shot injury on 13.05.2022. There is nothing to show that the injured was admitted at Medicval College Jhansi on 13.05.2022 but died on 17.05.2022 while undergoing treatment. Inquest of the deceased was conducted on 18.05.2022, which clearly prima-facie goes to prove the prosecution story. On the above premise, they submit that no case for grant of bail is made out . As such, present application for bail is liable to be rejected.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate or establish that occurrence had occurred on 13.05.2023 and the injured was under treatment from 15.05.2022 to 17.05.2022 at different hospital, the statement of the witnesses of the occurrence namely Rahgvendra, but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶25

As a result, present application fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶26

It is accordingly rejected.

¶27

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 YK

¶28

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

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pal Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Atabul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jhabbar Singh Vs State of U.P.