Allowed

Praveen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/32746/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under high-powered criminal charges including murder, the court allowed the bail prayer without expressing an opinion on the merits. The court relied on discrepancies in last seen evidence and the nature of the recovery to find force in the applicant's defense.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Praveen released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Praveen Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32746 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Praveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai,Mohd. Nasim Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ishan Deo Giri

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Nasim Ahmad and Sri Amit Rai, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Ishan Deo Giri, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 9 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC & 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Titavi, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.01.2023 against unknown persons and it was lodged by informant when dead body of unknown male was found near his tube-well.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation on 28.01.2023 i.e. after about two days from the date of lodgement of the FIR, when IO recorded the statement of one Vinod then he stated that he heard that deceased had gone along with the applicant in the morning of 20.01.2023 and thereafter it is alleged that one Hari Om Thakur stated to the IO in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he witnessed the applicant along with the deceased on 20.01.2023 at about 7:00 am in the morning and during investigation according to the prosecution, as per the CDR of the applicant, location of the applicant was also found near the place of incident and as per the prosecution, some electronic evidences in the shape of CCTV footage were also collected, which shows that applicant was driving the motorcycle and deceased was sitting behind him.

¶9

He further submitted that during investigation it is alleged that applicant was arrested and he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out from the open field mobile phone of the deceased and

¶10

his bag along with country-made pistol was recovered and in the bag the ' hing ' of the deceased was also recovered.

¶11

He further submitted that the entire recovery and confessional statement of the applicant is totally false and baseless and actually applicant never confessed his guilt and no recovery was made on his pointing out. He further submitted that from the post-mortem report, which was conducted on 22.01.2023, it appears that deceased might have died about 1-2 days before and as per the prosecution witnesses, applicant was last seen along with the deceased on 20.01.2023 at 7:00 a.m. in the morning but till evening upto 7:00 p.m. deceased was alive and this fact is evident from the statement of the brother of the deceased and therefore, on the basis of last seen evidence dated 20.01.2023 time 7:00 a.m., it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

¶12

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 29.01.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and evidence against the applicant is the evidence of last seen along with recovery of mobile phone and ' hing ' of the deceased and applicant committed his murder with intention to commit the loot of the ' hing ' of the deceased.

¶14

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

¶15

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and name of the applicant was revealed during investigation and initially it appears that on the basis of suspicion some villagers disclosed his name and thereafter Investigating Officer collected the evidence with regard to the fact that applicant was last seen along with the deceased on 20.01.2023 at about 7:00 a.m. in the morning and from the statement of brother of the deceased, Prem Prakash, which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that deceased was alive upto 7:00 p.m. and therefore, I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of evidence that applicant was last seen with the deceased about more than 12 hours before his death, is of no consequence.

¶16

Further, according to the prosecution case, when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out belongings of the deceased and his bag was recovered but merely on the basis of recovery made

¶17

on the pointing out of the applicant, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased, especially when the recovery was made from a open field.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant- Praveen 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 KK Patel

¶27

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

Praveen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shesh Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadesh Kharwar Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Gaur @ Manni Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.