Allowed

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2023BAIL/53514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53514 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant Virendra in a murder case. The bench, noting circumstantial evidence, unexplained FIR delay, and prior bail of co-accused, imposed specific conditions regarding attendance and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236016

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53514 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Virendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- V.S. Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri V.S. Rajpoot, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned A.G.A 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 applicant-Virendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.199 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Amanpur, District Kasganj.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 12.8.2023 by Amarpal against the applicant and three other persons alleging therein that on 8.8.2023 at about 6 a.m. his chacha Khetpal was playing cards in the room of tubewell in the field of the applicant along with other accused persons. The accused persons murdered him and threw his dead-body in a pond. When his chacha did not come back home, he was searched a lot and then at about 8.30 p.m. his dead-body was found floating there.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is argued that there is no eyewitness to the murder. The links in the chain of circumstances are missing. It is argued that the first informant is not an eye-witness of the incident. The implication of the applicant is only on the basis of suspicion. It is argued that the police has shown the recovery of a danda on the pointing out of co-accused Kripa Shankar alias Pappu but there is no corroboration of the use of the same. The FIR has been lodged after four days of the alleged incident and the delay in lodging of the same is totally unexplained. Charge sheet has been submitted in the matter, as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the

¶11

applicant. It is argued that co-accused Kailash, , Kripa Shankar alias Pappu and Hukum Singh have been granted bail by this Court as well as by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 4.12.2023, 11.12.2023 and 12.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.50737 of 2023, 53264 of 2023 and 52982 of 2023, copies of the same have been produced by learned counsel for the applicant which are taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history, para 33 has been placed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 8.9.2023.

¶12

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

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present matter is a matter of circumstantial evidence. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. Charge sheet has been submitted in the matter against the applicant and other co-accused persons. FIR has been lodged after a delay of four days which is totally unexplained. Co-accused persons have already been granted bail.

¶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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Virendra , 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶20

(v) The applicant 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 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

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 applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Gaurav Kuls

¶26

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra 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

Vikki Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Vipina @ Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Anil Rajak Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Asha Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Gupta Vs State of U.P.