Allowed

Deepak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/22584/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a murder charge, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, distinguishing his case from a co-accused responsible for the firing, noting insufficient evidence of his direct involvement or intent to tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions regarding attendance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131000

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22584 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Deepak , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1100 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.

¶8

The first information report of the present case was lodged on 21.11.2022 by Mudit Kumar against the applicant and four other persons namely Rahul @ Appa, Vishal, Kuldeep and Luv Rajpoot alleging therein that on 20.11.2022 his brother Sujeet @ Gola had some altercation with the father of Rahul @ Appa. Due to said enmity on 21.11.2022 at about 2.35 pm Sujeet @ Gola was standing near liquor bhatti at Gangapur Chauraha where the accused persons armed with illegal firearms came there and Sujeet was shot on his head by Rahul @ Appa due to which he died on the spot. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted in which the doctor found two firearm wounds being the wound of entry & exit and on probing they were connecting to each other internally.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per the prosecution version the firing upon the deceased Sujeet @ Gola has been done by co-accused Rahul @ Appa. It is argued that the applicant has been made as an accused only because of the reason that he is the brother of co-accused Rahul @ Appa. It is further argued that the applicant is not involved in the present case. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession of the applicant or from the pointing out of the applicant. It is argued that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Rahul @ Appa. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 11 of the affidavit and is in jail since 10.02.2023.

¶10

Per contra , learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant

¶11

submitted that in CD No. 12 of the case diary the mother of the deceased has stated that she saw the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence and found the applicant to be helping co-accused Rahul @ Appa in the incident and then Rahul @ Appa fired upon the deceased.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the applicant is involved in one other case in the year 2022 under the Gambling Act. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and as such the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

¶13

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicant is named in the first information report as an accused along with four other persons but the role of firing upon the deceased is assigned to co-accused Rahul @ Appa. The deceased was found to have receive a single firearm wound.

¶14

The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Rahul @ Appa.

¶15

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.

¶16

Let the applicant- Deepak , 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

The bail application is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 AS Rathore

¶27

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Hari Babu Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Shahnoor Vs State of U.P.