Allowed

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023BAIL/4231/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the second bail application of Pradeep in a criminal trial involving murder and abetment. The court accepted that the main accused is on bail and noted potential inadmissibility of certain evidence, granting bail on a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4231 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava,Ch. Dil Nisar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2022.

¶7

Heard Shri Chaudhary Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.125 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120B, 420, 201 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the only evidence against the applicant is the confession of the coaccused person Ankit whereby he has nominated the applicant to be involved in the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that the said statement is not admissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said fact has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh alias Chandra vs. State of Karnataka, AIROnline 2022 SC 595 . Learned counsel has further stated that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the main accused person Ankit Kumar has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2022. The case of the applicant is at a better footing to the co-accused person Ankit Kumar as he is named accused person and the applicant is not named in the FIR. Later on, two witnesses, namely, Nathiram and Jaswant, have been introduced before whom the extra judicial confession is stated to have been made by the applicant and co-accused person Ankit Kumar. Learned counsel has further stated that the said extra judicial confession is not as per the mandate of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot come under the purview of extra judicial confession itself. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per

¶10

counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions narrated by the counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the main accused person Ankit Kumar, who is named in the FIR, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Pradeep involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

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

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.3.2023 Ravi Kant

¶22

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

Pradeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Navneet and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Singh Mangal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Phahimuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Jee Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dashrath Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.