Allowed

Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2023BAIL/58386/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302 and 460 IPC, the High Court allowed relief. The court observed that the case relied on circumstantial evidence with disputed prosecution motive and no FSL report confirming human blood on recovered articles. The recovery of a helmet was deemed irrelevant without corroboration.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties in the same amount, with undertakings to appear and refrain from tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114317

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58386 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri N.I.Zafari, learned Senior Advocate, holding brief of Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.400 of 2022, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.8.2022 under Sections 302and 460 IPC against unknown persons and according to the FIR on 10.8.2022 informant had gone outside from his home and in the house his mother was alone and when he returned in the night at about 10.10 PM then found that his mother was murdered and almirah of the house was open and jewellery boxes were empty.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR and from the FIR, it appears that after committing loot mother of the informant was murdered but when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded during investigation then he changed his earlier version and did not speak even a word about loot and robbery and stated that on 10.8.2022 when he

¶10

alongwith others were attending a party in a bear shop in the afternoon along with the applicant then at that time applicant left the party for about 30-45 minutes and he raised suspicion that in between after committing murder of his mother, applicant returned back and he further stated applicant was having close relationship with his sister and when his mother since deceased came to know about this fact then she scolded the applicant and told him not to come at her come and only due to this reason he committed the murder of his mother and thus it appears, informant on suspicion made him accused.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that during investigation Investigating Officer procured CCTV Footage from the place of party and CCTV Footage also shows that applicant left the party and subsequently joined the same. He further submits that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested on the basis of allegation made by the informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one blood stained knife and his blood stained clothes (kurta paizama) and helmet were recovered from the bush.

¶12

He next submits that except the recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of applicant, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

¶13

He further submits that merely on the basis of recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of the applicant, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. He next submits that till date there is no FSL report on record which can show that knife and clothes were having human blood.

¶14

He further submits that no evidence could be collected by

¶15

Investigating Officer during investigation which can show that applicant either ever entered in the house of the deceased on 10.8.2022 in the afternoon or he came out from his house. He further submits that in the FIR informant categorically mentioned that at the time in the house his tenant Shivam Mishra was present but surprisingly during investigation Shivam Mishra could not be interrogated by Investigating Officer and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are clinching circumstances against the applicant that he left the party for about 45 minutes in the afternoon on 10.8.2022 and thereafter on his pointing out blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of applicant along with helmet were recovered.

¶17

Learned counsel for the informant further submitted that even the CCTV Footage also shows that applicant left the party in midway for about 45 minutes and, therefore, considering the evidence collected by Investigating Officer, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and although initially informant tried to give colour the incident as robbery and stated in the FIR that when he arrived at home then his mother was found dead and jewellery from his almirah was missing but during investigation when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded then he changed his FIR version and raised suspicion against the applicant on the ground that applicant was having relationship with his sister and his

¶20

mother,i.e., the deceased objected and due to this reason applicant committed the murder of his mother.

¶21

In the statement informant further narrated the story that applicant left the party for about 45 minutes and during investigation the fact disclosed by the informant also finds support that applicant left the party and subsequently again joined the same and thereafter as per prosecution on the pointing out of the applicant one blood stained knife, blood stained clothes of applicant and one helmet were recovered but no evidence could be collected by Investigating Officer which could show that after leaving the party applicant either entered in the house of the deceased or was coming out from her house.

¶22

Further, during investigation Investigating Officer did not even record the statement of the tenant of the informant, namely, Shivam Mishra and did not even conduct the investigation with regard to loot. From the record, it appears that in the present matter only evidence against the applicant is the motive and recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of applicant alongwith helmet.

¶23

In my view, recovery of helmet is irrelevant as there is no evidence that applicant by using helmet committed murder of the deceased and as far as recovery of the blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of the applicant are concerned, merely on this basis at this stage it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the informant.

¶24

Further, till date there is no FSL report on record which can show that blood stained knife and blood stained clothes of applicant were having human blood.

¶25

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶26

case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶28

Let the applicant- Kuldeep Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶33

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶34

Order Date :- 24.5.2023

¶35

SKM

¶36

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

Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh 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

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Munna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Goswami Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yamuna Devi Vs State of U.P.

Nate Pasi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others