Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023BAIL/50346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case (Sections 302, 120-B IPC), the High Court allowed the applicant's release on personal bond and two sureties. The Court noted the applicant's absence from the F.I.R., lack of witness testimony, and weaker complicity compared to a co-accused already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to prescribed conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50346 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Tripathi,Radhey Shyam Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶6

The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station-Kampil, District-Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per the prosecution case in brief, the informant who is brother of the deceased lodged F.I.R. on 04.06.2022 at 17:00 hours, under Sections 302, 120B of I.P.C. against two named accused persons, namely, Arvind and Dushyant who are husband and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively and two unknown persons with the allegations inter alia of causing murder of the deceased-Usha Devi by them and the main motive has been assigned by the informant to co-accused Arvind by stating that his marriage was solemnized with the deceased about 18 years ago and two male children were also born from their wedlock but he had an affair with another girl, therefore, he wanted to get rid of his wife, because of this reason he committed murder of his wife in collusion with co-accused persons.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case. As per postmortem report of the deceased, cause of her death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and except ligature mark, no other injury

¶9

has been found on her body, therefore, the prosecution case does not corroborate with the medical evidence. It is also pointed out that as per prosecution case, the deceased prior to her death informed her both the sons Vipin and Sachin that accused persons are assaulting her but they, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was recorded after about two months of the incident, did not take the name of the applicant. It is also argued that the complicity of the applicant came into light in the confessional statement of Arvind, who is husband of the deceased but he has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 58858 of 2022. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of five cases in which he is already on bail and the same has been explained in Paragraph No. 23 of the bail application. In the present case applicant is languishing in jail since 27.07.2022.

¶10

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 contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage but they could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and there is no eye-witness of the incident. Both the sons of the deceased, namely, Vipin and Sachin did not take the name of the applicant in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. Complicity of the applicant came into light in the confessional statement of the co-accused Arvind who has been granted bail as noted above. The case of the present applicant stands on better footing to that of co-accused Arvind.

¶12

In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the

¶13

accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Vinod 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Kashifa

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Aftab Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Biyar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagmohan @ Jagge Tomar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Lal Gond Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others