Allowed

Devendra Singh Alias Bittu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2023BAIL/55285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding a murder case involving CBI Sections 304 IPC, the Allahabad High Court examined the delay in lodging the FIR and false implications arising from a dowry dispute, finding the applicant had made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in Crime No. 252 of 2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Devendra Singh Alias Bittu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55285 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Singh Alias Bittu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- ....,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Araf Khan,Mahabir Yadav,Vijay Kumar Kushwaha,Waseem Akram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Singh Pundir

¶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 / complainant.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Devendra Singh Alias Bittu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 252 of 2022, under Sections 304, 504 IPC, police station Mandi Dhanaura, district Amroha, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that marriage of Aarti, daughter of the deceased, was solemnized with co-accused Sandeep, who is brother of the applicant, but on account of acrimonious relation/matrimonial dispute between Aarti and Sandeep, the applicant, being brother-in-law of Aarti, has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the deceased received injuries somewhere else and the complainant side taking the benefit of this situation, implicated the applicant and his other family members on account of aforesaid matrimonial dispute and in this regard on 06.08.2022, informant Balvindar @ Vilayati, who is brother of the deceased, gave an application to police of police station Chapar, district Muzaffar Nagar mentioning inter alia that his brother Daljeet Singh (deceased) had gone to the house of in-laws of his daughter Aarti, where some hot talk took place and he was assaulted by her in-laws whereby he succumbed to injuries. It is also alleged that in-laws of Aarti brought the dead-body of the deceased from village Chicholakala, district Amroha to village Sisauna, district Muzaffar Nagar and handed over to

¶8

him. Then he noticed that there was injury on the head of the deceased. In the application, he requested for getting the post mortem of the deceased conducted. On the said application, inquest proceeding was conducted on 06.08.2022, in which Aarti is not one of the panch witness and thereafter, post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 07.08.2022 and as per post mortem report, five injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. The immediate cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury. It is next submitted that no F.I.R. was lodged immediately after conducting the post mortem of the deceased. Later, on 09.08.2022, brother of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. against Rajesh, Sandeep and present applicant Devendra Singh @ Bittu, who are father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of daughter of the deceased Aarti. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no eye-witness of the incident whereas daughter-in-law Aarti claims to be an eye-witness of the incident but not made complaint or lodged F.I.R. in district Amroha where the alleged incident took place and not lodging the F.I.R. even immediately after the post mortem report indicates that she has given tutored statement under the pressure of her uncle.

¶9

On the strength of aforesaid facts, main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that incident has not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has not come with clean hand. The applicant is brotherin-law of Aarti, daughter of the deceased, and had no concern with the matrimonial dispute between his brother Sandeep and wife Aarti. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2022 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶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 the incident took place in the matrimonial house of daughter of the deceased where the deceased was badly assaulted whereby he succumbed to injuries but learned counsel for the informant could not give satisfactory reply as to why immediately after receiving the dead-body of the deceased, no F.I.R. was lodged.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that as per the prosecution case, informant and his family members were very much aware about the alleged incident dated 06.08.2022. They gave an application to the police for getting the post mortem on the body of the deceased conducted but did not lodge the F.I.R. In the light of delay in lodging the F.I.R., possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Devendra Singh Alias Bittu , 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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

¶16

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Shubham

¶21

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

Devendra Singh Alias Bittu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh Alias Bittu 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

Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kafeel @ Kafeeluddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indresh Pal Vs State of U.P.

Sangam Lal Bind Vs State of U.P.

Patil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahil @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another