Allowed

Deepak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023BAIL/54826/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case, finding the implication based on suspicion with no credible evidence or eyewitnesses, and ordered the release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Deepak released on bail in FIR Case No. 448 of 2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209464

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54826 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ashish Kumar,Gaurang Kulshreshtha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned cousnel 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 Deepak, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 448 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 15.7.2022 by Smt. Meera against the applicant Deepak and Suresh with the allegation that there was quarrel and fight between the applicant and her husband Dilip. Subsequently Ankit gave 100 rupees to her husband and told him to bring country made liquor by his motorcycle, on which her husband went but did not return. He was searched a lot but could not be traced. On 14.7.2022 she received an information about a man lying in a drain in jungle on which she, her devar Rajkumar and other family members went there and identified him as her husband Dilip who was found dead.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no eye witness to the murder. It is further argued that the present case is a case in which the applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion only and there is no credible evidence whatsoever against him. It is argued that although the police has shown recovery of a brick with some hairs on the pointing out of the applicant which was sent to the chemical analyst for analysis who opined that the blood on the same is disintegrated and group of the same cannot be

¶11

deciphered and as such recovery is also uncorroborated. It is argued that the applicant has been implicated in the present matter only because of reason that he happens to be co-tenant in the same house and previously there was fight between the applicant and the deceased. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence or no co-operating in the investigation. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.10.2022.

¶12

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no eye witness to the incident. Implication of the applicant in the present case is of suspicion only and there is no credible evidence whatsoever against him. Although there is recovery of brick with hairs on the pointing out of the applicant but the same is uncorroborated as the chemical analyst opined that the blood on the same is disintegrated and group of the same cannot be deciphered. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence or no co-operating in the investigation.

¶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- Deepak, 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

¶19

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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 229A IPC.

¶22

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

¶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 applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Naresh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Teajo @ Teajpal Vs State of U.P.

Aladeen Ahmad Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Shamshul Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brahma Devi @ Rammurti Vs State of U.P.

Paras Babu Vs State of U.P.