In a bail application under Sections 147 and 302 IPC, the Court held that a bail case was made out despite the heinous nature of the offence. The applicant was ordered enlarged on bail subject to specific conditions regarding trial participation and presence.
Applicant enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127662
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22229 of 2023
Applicant :- Muneshwar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant to enlarge him on bail in case crime no.385 of 2006 under Sections 147 and 302 I.P.C, P.S. Jahanganj, District- Farrukhabad.
The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegations are that on 07.09.2006 at about 7 a.m. Ravendra Singh @ Kariya was called by Muneem from his house in presence of his father and brother (complainant). They returned in the evening at about 5 p.m., Muneem was sitting with Ravendra Singh i.e. brother of the complainant beside his field and Santosh S/o Sobaran, Ram Niwas, Muneshwar and Shyam Singh were also sitting there. They were seen by Pappu S/o Balakram, Pheru Singh S/o Banshi Lal and Prem Chandra. The brother of the complainant did not return in the night then complainant made a search but could not find him. After a thorough search, the dead body of Ravendra Singh was found near the field of Muneem and injury marks were found on the body of the deceased. The complainant had given information to the police orally and also in writing but case was not registered. It was assured that after postmortem, the case will be registered. When the police did not take any action then the complainant moved an application through registered post but even then no action was taken. After investigation, final report was submitted in favour of applicant, aggrieved with this, the complainant filed a protest petition on which the learned C.J.M. passed a summoning order.
It is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the F.I.R of this case has been lodged with an inordinate delay after two months of the incident. After a thorough investigation, it was found that when Revendra Singh i.e. deceased died, he was in drunken condition and received injuries in an inebriated condition. Final report was submitted and report under Section 182 Cr.P.C. was also filed against the complainant for lodging a false report. The applicant-accused challenged the summoning order in this Court through Criminal Revision No.3512 of 2007 and this Court was pleased to stay the operation of the summoning order by order dated
16.11.2007 but later on vide order dated 11.11.2016, the criminal revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R and only it is alleged that applicant was sitting beside the deceased and co-accused. There is no direct evidence and it is a case of circumstantial evidence but there is no sufficient evidence to form a complete chain. It is further contended that applicant has criminal history of two cases which have been explained in the supplementary affidavit. Lastly, it is contended that applicant is in jail since 07.04.2023 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the F.I.R., the reason for delay is that the F.I.R. was not registered by the police then the informant has to move the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., so there is sufficient explanation of delay. The postmortem report of the deceased confirms that the deceased has received antemortem injuries. The offence is of heinous nature, hence, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the nature of allegations made in the F.I.R., the evidence & other material available on record and all other attending facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this Court, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant- Muneshwar Singh involved in the aforesaid case, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
This bail order would be subject to the fulfillment of following conditions:-
Order Date :- 21.6.2023//SP/-
Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a murder charge under Section 302 IPC involving circumstantial evidence.
Whether delay in registration of the FIR justifies dismissal of the bail application.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Muneshwar Singh
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
