Allowed

Naveen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2023BAIL/21309/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Naveen in a murder case under Sections 302, 34, and 506 IPC, observing that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail and pending investigations did not warrant denying bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Naveen released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, and attending court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127114

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21309 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Naveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Pandey,Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saroj Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Naveen seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Khurja Dehat, District-Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 29.11.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated 29.11.2022 was lodged by first informant Jitendra @ Jeetoo and was registered as 103 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Khurja Dehat, District-Bulandshahar. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Rajveer Singh @ Pappu, Naveen, Ravi and Mahesh have been has been nominated as named accused.

¶10

According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that named accused with a common intention assaulted Rampal Singh, the uncle of the deceased. Named accused fired upon the uncle of the first informant with a country made gun on account of which he sustained gun shot injury. Ultimately, the

¶11

injured succumbed to the gun shot injury sustained by him.

¶12

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Rajveer Singh @ Pappu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18879 of 2023. For ready reference order dated 12.05.2023 is reproduced herein under:

¶13

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saroj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶14

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 403 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506, 34 of IPC, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶15

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that eye witnesses namely Rajwati and Kamlesh in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. assigned the role of catching hold to the applicant. It is further submitted that Ravi @ Ravikant @ Bhura who has been assigned the role of exhortation, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11809 of 2023. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2023 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶16

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for

¶17

grant of bail by contending that role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant but they could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶18

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that only role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant, without expressing any opinion on 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.

¶19

Let the applicant Rajveer Singh @ Pappu in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶20

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

¶21

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶22

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 "

¶26

Similarly, co-accused Ravi @ Ravikant @ Bhura has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11809 of 2023. For ready reference order dated 27.04.2023 is reproduced herein under:

¶27

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

¶28

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 403 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahr with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶29

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the first information report the only role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant. During the course of investigation, the statement of two witnesses, namely, Rajwati and Smt. Kamlesh have been recorded by the Investigating Officer and they have also stated that the applicant has been assigned the role of exhortation. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 01.12.2022 having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶30

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶32

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶33

Let applicant, Ravi @ Ravikant @ Bhura, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶34

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

¶35

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶36

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 "

¶40

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned co-accused , who have already been enlarged on bail . Applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold in the F.I.R. which is similar to that of co-accused Rajveer Singh @ Pappu, There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail. It is thus urged that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-accused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail . In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶41

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant has criminal history of one case but the same has not been explained. With reference to above, learned A.G.A. submits that the following solitary case is pending against applicant i.e. Case Crime No. 210 of 2021 under Section 188, 269 and 270 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of the Epidemic Disease Act, Police Station-Khurja, District Bulandshahar. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned

¶42

counsel for applicant with reference to the record upto this stage.

¶43

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that unexplained criminal history of applicant cannot be a ground to deny bail to applicant, as the Court has taken a decision to withdraw the cases relating to Covid-19.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, as well as complicity of applicant, the nature and gravity of offence, coupled with the fact that two similarly situated coaccused namely Rajveer Singh @ Pappu and Ravi @ Ravikant@ Bhura have already been enlarged on bail, the case present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned coaccused Rajveer Singh @ Pappu learned A.G.A. has not pointed out any such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforesaid coaccused so as to deny him bail, period of incarceration undergone, charge sheet having been submitted therefore entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stand crystallised, no circumstance having been pointed out by the learned A.G.A necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during course of trial, the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhash Chandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2023 Live Law SC 373 , but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶45

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.

¶46

Let the applicant- Naveen 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

¶47

concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶48

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶49

(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.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Order Date :- 16.6.2023 YK

¶54

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

Naveen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen 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

Sanjay Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surya Prakash Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muin Uddeen Khan and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munni Gupta Vs Vipin Srivastava

Shivam Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others