Allowed

Anshul @ Anshu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2023BAIL/46490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application. The Single Judge allowed bail to the applicant, who is under trial for murder, considering jail overcrowding and Article 21 rights, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with two sureties subject to undertaking not to tamper with evidence or seek adjournments and to remain present in court.

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

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:219611 Reserved On:- 17.11.2023 Delivered On:- 20.11.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46490 of 2023 Applicant :- Anshul @ Anshu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kartikey Singh, learned counsel for applicant; Sri Vikas Rastogi, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for State.

¶6

There is allegation in the FIR that there is litigation regarding partition of land of informant and his brother, Lakhan Singh, pending with his collaterals, Nirpat and Mahavir, sons of late Shiv Charan. They had enmity with the informant and his brother on aforesaid account. Their aunt (bua), co-accused, Indira Devi, was also having evil eye on their land and she used to instigate co-accused, Nirpat, Himanshu and Bunty, sons of Mahavir who were pressurizing them to with draw the case. On account of aforesaid enmity on 17.03.2023 at about 10:00 p.m co-accused, Bunty and two unknown accused covering their face, out of which one was of the size of co-accused, Himanshu, came armed with weapons and fired on the brother of informant, Lakhan Singh, and after causing him injury went away. During treatment, he died in the hospital. The incident was seen by son of Lakhan Singh, Devendra and Manish; Pawan son of Kartar; mother of Lakhan Singh, Ramwati and his daughter, Bhawna. It was alleged that all the accused persons have conspired due to greed of land and caused

¶7

¶8

murder of Lakhan Singh. The FIR was lodged by the brother of deceased, Surendra Singh, on the next day i.e., 18.03.2023 at about 13.55 hours.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and has no concern with the present offence. Police has falsely implicated him in this case only to workout the case. He was named by co-accused, Udal and Manvednra @ Bhola, who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 39720 of 2023 and 41516 of 2023. There is no evidence against the applicant for justifying his implication in this case except the confessional statement of co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 23.03.2023 and has criminal history of three cases explained in paragraph 33 of the bail application. All the three cases are of minor nature. Planted and joint incriminating recoveries cannot read against the applicant at this stage.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping 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., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶12

¶13

Let the applicant, Anshul @ Anshu, involved in Case Crime No. 300 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police StationHighway, District- Mathura, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶24

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.11.2023 Rohit

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anshul @ Anshu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul @ Anshu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varun @ Priyanshu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Desh Mohit Singh @ Mohit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Riyaz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Billu Urf Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh @ Puttu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others