Allowed

Joginder Alias Andahwa v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023BAIL/23505/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble AHC Court allowed bail to the applicant charged with murder under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The court noted discrepancies in the prosecution witness statement and the co-accused's release on bail, considering the application fit for bail without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130772

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23505 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Joginder Alias Andahwa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amar Nath Vishwakarma, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and two others and according to the FIR applicant and two other accused persons has taken the deceased on 01.03.2020 and on 02.03.2020 informant received an information that deceased, who was her husband, has been murdered by the applicant and his two associates and after committing the murder they have buried him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and from the perusal of the FIR it appears that informant herself did not witness that applicant and another two accused persons have taken the deceased and this fact was informed by one Deepu Kumar to her. He further submits that in the present matter except the fact that applicant and another accused persons Ram Milan Chauhan and Bahadur @ Vijay Bahadur have taken the deceased there is no other evidence at present available against the applicant on record. He further submits that although during investigation when the statement of Kajal daughter of the co-accused Ram Milan Chauhan was recorded by the Investigating Officer then she stated that applicant along with two other persons committed the murder of the deceased and buried his dead body but during trial when she was examined as PW-2 then she did not support her

¶10

earlier version recorded during investigation. He further submits that admittedly the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of co-accused Ram Milan.

¶11

He further submits that co-accused Bahadur @ Vijay Bahadur has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14403 of 2023. He placed the bail order of Bahadur @ Vijay Bahadur, which is taken on record and marked as 'A'. He further submits that case of applicant is exactly at par with him, therefore, on the ground of parity applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused Bahadur @ Vijay Bahadur has been released on bail and applicant in the present matter is in jail since 03.05.2020 i.e. for last about more than three years.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

Initially, it appears that it is a case of circumstantial evidence but during investigation when the statement of children of coaccused Ram Milan Chauhan were recorded then they stated that they witnessed that their father, co-accused Bahadur @ Vijay Bahadur and applicant after committing the murder of the deceased buried him in their house but during trial when one of the daughter of co-accused Ram Milan Chauhan was examined as PW2 then she did not support her earlier version recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after relying on her evidence, the coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the bail application of coaccused Bahadur @ Vijay Bahadur and case of applicant is at par with him and applicant in the present matter is in jail since 03.05.2020 i.e. for last about more than three years.

¶15

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in view of this Court, it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant - Joginder @ Andahwa be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶21

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

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 AK Pandey

¶24

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

Joginder Alias Andahwa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Alias Andahwa 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

Chunna Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Asgar Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jitu Vs State of U.P.