This bail application by an accused charged with murder under IPC Sections 302 and 326 was rejected. The court found a clear motive based on property mutation disputes and directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reserved on 28.1.2023 Delivered on 01.02.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56872 of 2022
Applicant :- Hinchhlal Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla,Kumar Kartikeya,Ramendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambuj Mishra,Hari Pratap Singh,I.P. Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Kumar Kartikeya, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri I.P. Singh learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Hinchhlal Sharma, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 281 of 2022, under Sections 302, 326 IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation in the FIR that the informant came to know that her son had fallen on the roof of the house as a result of which he suffered serious head injury. He was taken on Swarooprani Hospital, Prayagraj, where doctor informed that her son has suffered gun shot injury on his head.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first of all another uncle of the deceased, Roop Nath Sharma, gave information to the S.H.O., Jhunsi, Prayagraj that his nephew, Raj Sharma, was going towards the adjacent room, when suddenly he fell down on the iron grill due to slipping of of his leg and suffered injuries on his head. He is admitted at Parwati Hospital. Thereafter FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased against unknown accused on 01.06.2022. He has submitted that the applicant is also uncle of the deceased. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He never committed the murder of his nephew. The police has falsely implicated him only to work out the
case. He has submitted that the informant has falsely made allegation against him in her second statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has submitted that there is allegation in the second statement of the informant that the applicant did not wanted the mutation of name of her husband on the land situated in Tehsil Phoolpur. It was her son, Raj Sharma, the deceased, who made application for adding the name of his father, Deena Nath Sharma in the land, which was not liked by the applicant. He was also envious of the deceased, who was good in studies. He has submitted that the Investigating Officer has cooked up all the false story only to implicate the applicant.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. He is in possession of the copy of the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Phoolpur, Prayagraj, under Section 38 (2) of the Revenue Code, which shows that the name of the husband of the informant and father of the deceased was included as co-tenure holder in the land recorded in the name of his father.
Learned counsel for the informant has sought time to bring on record documents by way of counter affidavit, but the learned counsel for the applicant has opposed the grant of time for the same.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but does not disputes the aforesaid arguments.
After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that from the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer it is clear that the deceased was standing on the iron grill in the Angan of the house and on the room above, the applicant and the father of the deceased were sitting together. In the post mortem report of the deceased, one gun shot wound entry has been found on the right side upper part of parietal region of skull. The informant, mother of the deceased, was not aware of the correct facts and believed what was stated by the other members of the family, where her son suffered injuries in his head. When gun shot injury was discovered in the Hospital in the head of the deceased, she came to know about the correct facts, which she has stated in her
2 of 3
second statement. In her second statement she has clearly stated that her brother-in-law, applicant, has ill-will towards her children. 16 Biswa land left behind by her father-in-law. Name of her husband was not mutated. Thereafter her deceased son made efforts and got his father’s name mutated. On account of the aforesaid mutation of name of the husband of the informant, applicant was quite annoyed and hence he shot her son on the head. This Court finds that in the statement of the father of the deceased, he has not made any allegation against the applicant. He has stated that he is not aware, who caused the murder of her son. On the roof of the house, two glasses and one bottle of countrymade liquor was found. Father of the deceased informed that the applicant consumes liquor and also asked him to do the same. He was asked why he and his younger brother did not went to the hospital. He informed that no one is in the house hence they did not went to the hospital. From the site plan it appears that the incident took place inside the house and there was no outsider in the house at the time of incident. The motive of the crime has been disclosed by the mother of the deceased in her statement. It is not fit ground of grant of bail of the applicant at this stage.
The bail application of the applicant is accordingly rejected.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 01.02.2023
Ruchi Agrahari
3 of 3
Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused of murder given the motive and evidence.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial proceedings.
Hinchhlal Sharma
State of U.P.
Siddharth
Ruchi Agrahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
