Allowed

Madanlal @ Puttu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2023BAIL/53376/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court observed overcrowding in jails and one-sided investigation. Citing Satendra Kumar Antil, the Court allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, directing a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including presence in court and prohibition of tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141204

¶3

Reserved On:- 13.07.2023 Delivered On:- 17.07.2023

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53376 of 2022 Applicant :- Madanlal @ Puttu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Pulkit

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

There is allegation in the FIR that on 04.07.2021 at about 02:00 p.m the son of the informant, Chand Babu, aged about 22 years left his house without informant anyone. Thereafter his missing report was lodged. It was further alleged in the FIR that in the year 2021 his son, Chand Babu and the informant had lived in the house of Madanlal @ Puttu, the applicant. The informant and his son had kept goats while living in the house of applicant. The son Chand Babu, used to talk with the daughter of the applicant, Laxmi, which was not liked by the applicant and his family members. The applicant had got his daughter married. He had suspicion that the applicant can harm his son with the help of some other persons. His elder son, Jakir and Shadab, son of Shehzad, are cloth vendors and on 09.05.2022 they informed that they have seen his son, Chand Babu, with the applicant and his companions, who have killed him because daughter

¶10

¶11

of the applicant used to talk with Chand Babu. Hence, FIR was lodged on 11.05.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication of the applicant. He has submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of information given by Jakir and Shadab but in their statements recorded by the investigating officer they have not disclosed the source from which they got the information about the commission of the murder of son of the informant, Chand Babu, by the applicant and other co-accused.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the adhaar card and photograph of the deceased were planted by police to falsely implicate the applicant and in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act such a recovery cannot be construed against the applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant. It is a case of blind murder. There is no credible evidence against the applicant at this stage. There is no allegation that even after the marriage of daughter of the applicant, he went to her matrimonial home nor there is any evidence recorded by the investigating officer of the members of the matrimonial home of Laxmi. Statement of Laxmi was also not recorded by the investigating officer to ascertain the correct facts. The applicant is in jail since 12.05.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶15

Learned A.G.A has also opposed the bail application of the applicant.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the applicant, Madanlal @ Puttu, involved in Case Crime No. 277 of 2022, under Sections- 302, 201, 120-B/34 IPC, Police StationKasganj, District- Kasganj, 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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 17.07.2023

¶31

Rohit

¶32

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

Madanlal @ Puttu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madanlal @ Puttu 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

Anand Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjeet Kumar @ Jhulli Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

X- Minor vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Prajapati Vs State of U.P.and Another