Allowed

Nityanand v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023BAIL/28148/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Cr.P.C. The High Court released the undertrial applicant on bail despite serious allegations of murder, relying on the constitutional right to speedy trial and jail overcrowding. The order imposed strict conditions including prohibitions on tampering with evidence and requirements for personal attendance at key trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail under personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140030

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28148 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Nityanand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey,Amit Daga,Avanish Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Shekhar Pandey,Shri Prakash Dwivedi,Som Nath Pandey,Vikrant Singh Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratik Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Kauslesh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pratik Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Nityanand, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2022, under Sections 302, 452, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District- Mirzapur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence of murder after entering into the house of the deceased and also hatching conspiracy.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the FIR it is clear that on 21.03.2022 the applicant was found in the house of the informant quarreling with the deceased and thereafter, it is alleged that that he allegedly strangulated her to death in her own house. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. At 8:00 am on 21.03.2022, the alleged incident is alleged to have taken place. In the post mortem report of the deceased conducted on the same day at 4:25 pm the time of death of deceased was found by the doctor to on one day old. He has further submitted that at the time of post mortem of the deceased, the rigor mortis was found on the both limbs of the deceased. He has submitted that rigor mortis starts after 12 hours of the death of person and its presence on the both limbs of the dead body after 8 hours is not credible. It is a case of horror killing. It appears that because of love affair of the applicant with

¶10

the deceased, she was done to death by someone else in her family and thereafter the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has criminal history of two cases to his credit and is languishing in jail since 23.03.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail 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 that :-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court

¶17

on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

¶22

Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 Abhishek

¶24

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

Nityanand v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nityanand 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P.