Allowed

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2023BAIL/24024/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the Allahabad High Court examined the plea for liberty of the applicant, Krishna Kumar Pal. Considering parity with a co-accused already granted bail, clean antecedents, and the assigned role of another accused, the court found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and non-tamper with evidence.

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126239

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24024 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 219 of 2022, under Section 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Karchana, District- Prayagraj during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 1777 of 2022 (State Vs. Umesh Kumar Gautam) under Section 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Karchana, District- Prayagraj, now pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.19 Allahabad.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 14.07.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 15.07.2022 was lodged by the first informant Vanshdari Pal and was registered as Case Crime No. 219 of 2022 under Section 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Karchana, District- Prayagraj. In the aforesaid F.I.R. one Gabbar has been nominated as named accused whereas the associates of Gabbar have also been assigned as accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused Gabbar along with his associates came to the place where the injured was sleeping in his field alongwith his sheep. The applicant with named accused Gabbar and others are alleged to have come to the aforesaid place. Named accused Gabbar is alleged to have fired gunshot at Salikram Pal (injured) on account of which he sustained injuries.

¶11

After aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged, investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime

¶12

number. Unfortunately during the pendency of investigation the (Injured) Salikram Pal succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Accordingly the case was altered to under Section 302/34 I.P.C. After completion of investigation investigating officer submitted the charge sheet dated 01.10.2022 whereby and whereunder four persons, namely, Umesh Kumar Gautam @ Gabbar, i.e. three named accused and were not named accused, namely, Om Prakash Pal , Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar and Anand Pal have been charge sheeted.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Om Prakash Pal had already been enlarged on bail by this coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23130 of 2023 (Om Prakash Pal Vs. State of U.P.) for ready reference the order dated 06.06.2023 is reproduced here-in-above :-

¶14

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

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has no motive to cause this incident. It is further submitted that wife of deceased Nandini had been examined as PW-1 on 20.03.2023 and she had not supported prosecution case with regard to Om Prakash Pal and stated that there was money transaction with Umesh Kumar Gautam @ Gabbar. It is also submitted that her husband had not told the name of Om Prakash Pal. PW-1 had been declared hostile. It is also submitted that co-accused Anand Pal had been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21641/2023 on 29.05.2023. Initially case was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. and later it was converted in 302 I.P.C. Applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witness. Applicant is in custody since 28.07.2022.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail but could not dispute the arguments on fact advanced by learned counsel for applicant.

¶17

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶18

Let the applicant Om Prakash Pal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 219/2022, under sections 302, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Karchhana, DistrictPrayagraj, during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present

¶20

personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

(iii) The applicant will not harm and harass the complainant and in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

(iv) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶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."

¶25

Even otherwise, there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant from the above mentioned could be so distinguished so as to deny him bail. It is further submitted that applicant is a man of clean antecedent in as much as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 28.07.2022. As such he has undergone more than 11 months incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. It is then urged that applicant is enlarged on bail.

¶26

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Om Prakash Pal who is also not named in the F.I.R. but a charge sheeted accused. The role of firing is assigned to named accused Umesh Kumar Gautam @ Gabbar. He therefore, submits that in view of the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 06.06.2023 applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶27

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶28

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of accused applicant and accusations made coupled with the fact that co-accused Om Prakash Pal has already been enlarged on bail, there being nothing on record to distinguish the case of the present applicant from aforementioned co-accused so as to deny him bail,

¶29

the clean antecedents of the applicant, the role of firing having been assigned to named accused Umesh Kumar Gautam @ Gabbar, the clean antecedents of the applicant in as much as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶31

Let the applicant Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar 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:-

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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.

¶38

Order Date :- 12.6.2023 Gaurav

¶39

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar 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

Indraveer Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Karunesh Sharma vs State of U.P.

Lavlesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Indal Prasad Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another