Allowed

Brajlal@ Brajpal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023BAIL/52602/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by three applicants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder and nlescious assault case. The court found no convincing material to indicate tampering with evidence and released the applicants on personal bond and sureties with standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Brajlal, Kuvarpal and Lakhan be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Brajlal@ Brajpal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:233228

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52602 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Brajlal@ Brajpal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Brajlal @ Brajpal, Kuvarpal and Lakhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 288 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Junawai, District Sambhal.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 11.08.2023 by Pappu against the applicants, Indrapal and Suneel alleging therein that on 10.08.2023 at about 05:00 pm his cousin brother Avadhesh was having liquor with the accused persons in the filed, they entered into a fight and there was beating and abuses between them. Indrapal and Suneel kicked him in private parts and then left him at the temple and ran away. He was taken to the police station from where he was taken to the government hospital. He died during treatment on 11.08.2023.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per the FIR, the deceased and the accused persons were having liquor. It is argued that in so far as co-accused Indrapal and Suneel are concerned, they have been assigned the role of assault on the deceased by kick in his private parts. It is argued that the doctor in the internal examination although found occipital hematoma present at base of skull and found fracture and further there was bilateral swelling on the scrotum and the cause of death is

¶11

hammehorage and shock due to hypovolemic shock due to antemortem injury (internal). It is argued that common and general role has been assigned to the applicants. It is further argued that the deceased while being in an injured condition was interrogated by the Investigating Officer but he did not assign any role to the applicants. It is further argued that the role of assault on the deceased in his private parts by kick is by co-accused Indrapal and Suneel. He further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and are in jail since 12.08.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the deceased and the applicants along with two other co-accused persons were consuming liquor where some dispute arose after which there was abuses and assault and co-accused Indrapal and Suneel assaulted him by kick in his private parts. General and common role has been assigned to the applicants. In the statement of the deceased while being in an injured condition, no overt act has been assigned to the applicants.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicants Brajlal @ Brajpal, Kuvarpal and Lakhan , 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:-

¶16

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this

¶19

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.

¶20

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶21

(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

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

Brajlal@ Brajpal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajlal@ Brajpal and 2 Others 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

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.

Kanha @ Jayprakash Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Bipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.