Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2023BAIL/55762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Vijay Kumar, accused in a murder case. Relying on the decision granting bail to a co-accused and finding no distinct grounds for rejection, the court allowed the application, emphasizing parity in the nature of accusation and lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail in the accused case crime number, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, with standard conditions to cooperate in trial and not tam

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108302

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55762 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Dixit,Somdev Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Vijay Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 363 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, police station Dakshin, district Firozabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case in brief, informant Shyamveer, who is son of Buddh Sen (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), lodged a first information report on 20.07.2022 at 00:30 hours for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against the present applicant Chhote Lal and his unknown associates alleging inter-alia that his father had a shop of materials used to construct a building. On 19.07.2022, when his father did not reach home till 09:00 pm from his shop, then he called several times but he did not answer. F.I.R. further alleges that the informant alongwith his brother Akhilesh went to the shop and saw that door of the room was locked from outside. On seeing from the grill, his father had fallen down from the bed in a blooded condition, who died at the spot. On the basis of suspicion, informant lodged F.I.R. against Chhote Lal and his unknown associates that they, in collusion with each other, killed his father because many times, he threatened his father in front of him and other people also.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsley implicated in this case and there is no motive to

¶10

commit the alleged incident. It is also submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that case of the applicant stands on identical footing to that of co-accused Chhote Lal, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55335 of 2022, a copy of said order has been produced by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record and hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 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 of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.05.2022 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶11

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 but do not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Chhote Lal under similar accusation has been granted bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, evidence, complicity of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Vijay Kumar , 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

¶15

expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(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 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 :- 18.5.2023 Shubham

¶21

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

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayaram Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Yadav @ Pinku Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nemi Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Ankit @ Sankit Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others