Dismissed

Munish Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023BAIL/41297/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects a bail application filed by an accused charged with murder and kidnapping. The court noted the applicant's delay in appearing and the trial delay it caused, distinguishing the applicant from a co-accused who was granted bail, thereby denying bail without deciding the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:214181

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41297 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Munish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, 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-Munish Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2017, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 IPC, Police StationNawabganj, District-Bareilly during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 13.03.2017, a delayed FIR dated 14.03.2017 was lodged by first informant-Mukhtyar Ahmad (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 112 of 2017, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid FIR, an unknown person has been arraigned as solitary accused.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 07.06.2017 whereby 2 persons namely (Munish Kumar (applicant herein) and Prempal were charge sheeted. He further submits that even though applicant is a charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

It is next contended that charges were framed against the charge sheeted accused vide framing of charge order dated 18.09.2019. However, in spite of fact that a period of more than 4 years has rolled by from the date of framing of charge order dated 18.09.2019, the statement in chief/examination in chief of PW-1 Mukhtyar Ahmad has not yet been recorded. It is then contended that warrants were issued against the first informant and

¶12

ultimately, the first informant appeared befor court below on 27.07.2023 when the warrant so issued against him was recalled. According to the learned counsel for applicant, even fro this date, a period of more than 1 year and 3 months has rolled by yet the examination in chief of PW-1 has not yet been recorded.

¶13

According to the learned counsel for applicant, co-accused Prempal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35295 of 2022 (Prem Pal Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 10.04.2023 is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶14

" वररममनदमणणणकपककररजममनरपमररनमपतआववदकपवमपमलककओरसवमम०अ०स० 112/2017, अनरर धमरम 364 ए, 302, 201 भम०दद०वव०, रमनमनवमबरदज, जजलमबरवललमम जममनरपरममककरनवहवरमपसरमरवकयमरयमहह।

¶15

आववदककवववदमनअजधवकम, पररवमदलकवववदमनअजधवकमएवदववदमनअपरशमसककय अजधवकमककसमनमररमपतमवललकमपररशललनवकयम।

¶16

आववदककवववदमनअजधवकमनवरकरपसरमरवकयमवकआववदकककइसपकररममरलरएवद फजरढदरसवझझठमफदसमयमरयमहह, उसनवकजररअपरमधकमरररनहहवकयमहह।आववदकदमरम ममरकककहतयमनहहककरयलऔरनहलवकसलकमवफरररलकवजलएअपरहरवकयमरयमरम। आववदकपरमसझचनमररपकररममनममजदनहहहह।ररमकजररघरनमकमककईपतयकदशरसमकल नहहहह।आववदकककमममलवममपररणसरवरजनयसमकययकवआधमरपरनमवमरवकयमरयमहह। उनकमयहभलकरनहहवकअवरनयमयमलयमममममलवकमसतपरलकरववलदवबरहह।मममलवकव पल0 णबलझ0-1/वमदलममकदममममकतयमरअहमदककममखयपरलकमवद० 04.01.2020 ककपमरमभ हहई, जकअभलरकपचजलरहह।आववदकवनदरषहहररमवहइसपकररममवद० 18.03.2017 सवकमरमरमरममवनरदहह।इसजलएआववदकककजममनरपरछकडवदयमजमय।

¶17

पररवमदलकवववदमनअजधवकमएवदववदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमनवआववदककवजममनरकम पबलववरकधकररवहहएरकरपसरमरवकयमवकआववदकदमरमकमरररअपरमधसदजवयएवदरदभलर पकमवरकमहह, इसजलएआववदकककजममनरपरनछकडमजमय।

¶18

आववदककवववदमनअजधवकमकवरकरदकवपररपवकयममपतमवललपरउपलबधसमरवमनरथययएवद पररणसरवरययकमसमगरपसवअवलककनकरनवकवबमद, सबझरयककपकमवरऔरवकसलभल ठकसववरकधमतमकसममगलककअनमपणसरवरएवदउपलबधसममगलसवछवडछमडककसदभमवनमन हकनवकवरथयककदवखरवहहएमवरलरमयममआववदकककजममनरपरममककरनवकमउपयमकआधमर हह।

¶19

अरतवमदकवरमर-दकषपरवबनमककईवरपपरलवकएहहएआववदकउपरककववर अपरमधमम सदबदजधरनयमयमलयककसदरमवषपरवयवकररबदध-पतएवदअजधकधनरमवशकवदकसरमनलय पवरभझपसरमरकरनवपरवनमनजलजखरशररदकवसमरजममनरपरछकडवदयमजमय।

¶20

आववदकववववचनमयमपरलकरकवदररमनअवभयकजनसमकययकवसमरछवडछमडनहहकरवरम। 2. आववदकअवभयकजनसमवकययवपलवडरम/ वशकमयरकरमरककणरमयवरम/धमकमयवरमनहह।

¶21

आववदकनयमयमलयकवआदवशयकमपमलनकरवरम, वहपरलकरकवदररमनवबनमककई अनमवशयकसररनजलएवनयरवरजरपरनयमयमलयममउपणसररहकरमररमपरलकरमम ईममनदमरलसवसहयकरकरवरम।

¶22

आववदकजममनरपरररहमहकनवकवबमदजममनरककसवरदतरमकमदमरपयकरनहहकरवरमऔर वकसलभलअपरमजधकरवरववजधममजलपनहहहकरमनककईअपरमजधककमतयकरवरम।

¶23

आववदकपतयकयमअपतयकरपसवमममलवकवरथययसवपररवचरवकसलभलवयवकयम पमजलसअजधकमररययककककईपलकभनयमधमककनहहदवरमनहलउनसवककईवमयदमकरवरम, जजसकवकमररउनहमनयमयमलयममरथययककउजमररकरनवसवववरररहनमपडव।

¶24

उपरककशररदममसववकसलकवउलदघनकवमममलवमम, परलकरनयमयमलयआववदकककजममनर वनयममनमसमररदकरनवककसवरदतहह।"

¶25

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned co-accused-Prem Pal, who has already been enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned co-accused so as to deny bail to the present applicant. It is thus urged that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of aforementioned co-accused-Prem Pal, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶26

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 18.03.2017. As such, he has undergone more than 6 years and 7 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶27

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. With reference to order sheet of aforementioned Sessions Trial, the learned A.G.A. contends that co-accused Prem Pal was enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.04.2023. The applicant has been evading his presence before Court as is clearly evident from the order sheet. On the above premise, it is thus urged that the trial is getting deliberately delayed on account of the conduct of present applicant. In view of aforesaid peculiar circumstance, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant by itself is not such a circumstance so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶28

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶29

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that the submissions urged by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶30

As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶31

It is accordingly rejected .

¶32

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Vinay

¶33

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

Munish Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Kumar 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

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Katheriya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hargyan Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others