Allowed

Pranjal Trivedi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/22056/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, wherein the applicant alleged he played only an exhortation role while another accused fired, the High Court allowed bail on personal bond and two sureties after finding reasons to dispense with custodial arrest despite not commenting on the merits of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and no adjournment seeking.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131020

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22056 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pranjal Trivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Devi,Dev Prakash Sharma,Shalvin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jwala Kumar Dwivedi,Virendra Kumar Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Shalvin, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Jwala Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for first informant.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Pranjal Trivedi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2023, under section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kabrai District Mahoba during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 28.2.2023, a prompt F.I.R. dated 28.2.2023 was lodged by first informant Brij Mohan (brother of deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 34 of 2023, under section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kabrai District Mahoba. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely, Adarsh @ Channu Dwivedi, Pranjal Trivedi have been nominated as named accused, whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that Chunnubad Sahu (deceased) brother of the first informant, was working as an accountant in a firm namely, Rak Granite Baghwa Karbai Crusher. On 28.9.2023 at around 9:00 am, named accused alongwith an unknown person came to the office of the deceased and demanded royalty which was refused by deceased on the ground that the same can be paid only by the owner. On account of aforesaid conduct of the deceased, named accused Channu Dwivedi fired gun shot on the chest of the brother of the first informant.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is a named accused in the F.I.R. He has then invited attention of Court to the statement of first informant which is at page 27 of the paper book. On the basis of above, he contends that role of firing has been assigned to named accused Channu Dwivedi. The only role which has been assigned to applicant is exhortation. The case of applicant is thus distinguishable from aforesaid named accused Channu Dwivedi.

¶12

It is next contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 2.3.2023. As such, he has undergone more than four months of incarceration. The police report under section 73 (2) has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicant now stands crystalized. He has thus placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 373 (Para 5) and on basis thereof he contends that no such circumstance has emerged on the basis of which it can be definitely concluded that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. He, therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail . In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Jwala Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for first informant have opposed this application for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that the author of the fatal gun shot injury sustained by deceased is Channu Dwivedi, the only role assigned to applicant is exhortation, clean antecedents of applicant, Police report in view of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. having been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution stands crystalized, custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the course of trial, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Pranjal Trivedi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:-

¶16

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY 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.

¶17

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶18

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶19

(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶21

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.7.2023

¶23

Arshad

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pranjal Trivedi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranjal Trivedi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kari Mohammad Akram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

State of Up vs Govind Das Sutradhar and Others

Vaseem Haider Khan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.