Allowed

Ankur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023BAIL/21283/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ankur accused of murder and affray. The Court distinguished his role as surrounding the deceased from the accused who assaulted with knives. Finding no convincing evidence of tampering, the Court granted bail subject to specific stringent conditions to ensure presence in court and expeditious trial management.

What did the court decide?

Accused Ankur released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to ensure attendance and prevent tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134094

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21283 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ankur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yash Raj Verma,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogendra Pal Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the first informant states that he has filed his vakalatnama in the office on 10.05.2023. The same is not on record.

¶9

Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet.

¶10

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ankur, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 17 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Medical, District Meerut.

¶11

The First Information Report of the present case was lodged on 18.01.2023 by Lalit Kumar against the applicant, Tarun Sharma, Varun Sharma, Akash @ Akki, Gaurav @ Baba, Prince and one unknown person alleging therein that on 18.01.2023 his son Kartik aged about 18 years was going to meet his relative and as soon as he reached BDS School the accused persons already present there surrounded him after which Tarun Sharma, Varun Sharma, Prince and Gaurav @ Baba assaulted him with knives on his chest and abdomen. The first informant Lalit, Jitendra, Manoj and Himanshu were passing by who tried to save him but the accused persons continuously assaulted his son with knifes and extended threats them and went away.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the First Information Report the role assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons was initially of surrounding the deceased after which four other co-accused persons assigned the role of assault on him by knives. It is argued that subsequently the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reiterated the same version as that

¶13

of the First Information Report. Then the alleged eye witnesses namely Jitendra, Manoj and Himanshu have assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased Kartik to the applicant. It is argued that the false implication of the applicant is also apparent from the fact that he has not been assigned any specific role either in the FIR or in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that as such the role of the applicant even taken from the statements of the alleged eye witnesses is of catching hold. The role of assault on the deceased with knives is assigned to co-accused Tarun Sharma, Varun Sharma, Prince and Gaurav @ Baba. It is argued that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of the said four co-accused. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 42 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.01.2023.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant initially with the other co-accused persons surrounded the deceased after which four accused persons assaulted him with knives. It is argued that at the time of incident he was there along with the co-accused was present there and as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the role of assault upon the deceased by knives is assigned to four other co-accused. The applicant is stated to have surrounded the deceased with other coaccused persons. Subsequently, the first informant reiterates the same version as that of the First Information Report. The other three eye witnesses have assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased to the applicant.

¶16

The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Tarun Sharma, Varun Sharma, Prince and Gaurav @ Baba.

¶17

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant Ankur , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

ii) The 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.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any

¶22

adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶25

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶26

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 and send the applicant to prison.

¶27

The bail application is allowed .

¶28

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 M. ARIF

¶29

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur 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

Sameer @ Shahbuddin Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Alias Dipu Alias Monu Biyar Vs State of U.P.

Sarjeet Vs State of U.P.

Kailashi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P.

Lata Sharma@ Hemlata Vs State of U.P.