Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 May 2023BAIL/4480/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant was named in witness statements 22 days after the incident alleging he shot a deceased, while prosecution witnesses assigned the shooting role to a co-accused. Finding no recovery of articles against the applicant and no chance of absconding, the court granted bail on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to cooperate, not tamper with evidence, and refrain from criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99601

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4480 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Vikas Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitin Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Shri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in case crime No. 829 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, police station Baraut, district Baghpat, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant Rajeev Kumar, who is uncle of Sunny (for brevity 'the deceased') lodged a first information report on 04.9.2022 against unknown person alleging inter alia that on 03.9.2022 at about 6.00 PM, deceased had gone towards field, at 10.00 PM, his elder brother Tiraspal was informed by Vijay, son of Ajay that his nephew (deceased) was shot dead by some unknown person. He brought him to the hospital, but doctor declared him dead.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the FIR. After lodging of the FIR, inquest was conducted on 04.9.2022, in which informant Rajeev, Nikhil, Pushpendra, Trispal and Vineet were the witnesses of inquest, but they did not disclose the complicity of the applicant. On the next date, when the statement of the informant Rajeev was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he expressed a suspicion that the deceased was killed by Dheeraj alias Chhola as deceased was having an affairs with the sister of

¶10

Dheeraj alias Chhola. In the said statement, informant has also stated that Mohit is eyewitness of the incident, but the investigating ofÏcer has recorded the statements of Mohit and Sanjeev on 25.9.2022, i.e. after 22 days of the incident, in which Mohit disclosed the complicity of Dheeraj alias Chhola as well as Vijay, son of Ajay Jaat and Vijay , son of Omveer Balmiki and role of shooting the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Dheeraj alias Chhola. Thereafter, the investigating ofÏcer has also recorded the statement of Pushpendra in which also the role of shooting has been assigned to coaccused Dheeraj alias Chhola. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in fact there was no eyewitness of the incident. If Mohit witnessed the incident, he would have told the same to the informant before lodging the FIR of this case.

¶11

On the strength of the aforesaid facts, it is further argued that there is no direct evidence against the applicant except the evidence of last seen of the applicant with the deceased. It is also argued that there is no corroborative material of recovery etc. from the possession of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.11.2022 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The complicity of the applicant came into light after 22 days of the incident in the statements of Mohit, Sanjeev and Pushpendra, but in their statements also the role of shooting the deceased has been assigned to co-

¶14

accused Dheeraj alias Chhola. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the applicant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of other co-accused.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Vijay Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶18

(ii) That 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶20

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.5.2023 Ishrat

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annu Singh @ Pahalwan Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nirmala Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khushi Mohammad @ Manu Saifi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Anam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.