This court rejected an application to cancel bail granted to an accused charged under Section 302 IPC. The applicant alleged witness terrorizing but no incriminating material or sufficient ground for cancellation emerged on record.
The bail cancellation application was rejected as misconceived; bail granted to the accused was allowed to continue.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:212750
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 436 of 2023
Applicant :- Indrapal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.C.Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Adesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.509 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with his brother Veer Singh
and two unknown persons are said to have throttled the father of the informant on 28.12.2022 at about 04:30 p.m. in the field near the canal. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the deceased person on 11.2.2022 also, whereby an FIR No.0050 of 2022 was lodged at the police station.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about more than twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the information at the police station was given by the nephew of the informant on the same evening on 28.12.2022 at 19:31 hours which was entered at GD No.40 on 28.12.2022. Learned counsel has stated that the informant Indrapal son of Khemchand had also accompanied his nephew to the police station as is evident from the perusal of GD No.40, which is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed with bail application. Learned counsel has stated that had the applicant committed the said offence, his name would have come up at the stage of informing the police the same evening. The FIR has been lodged just to usurp the property which the applicant and his brother inherited from the deceased person. Learned counsel has further stated that the eye-witnesses, who are stated to have seen the offence, are interested witnesses and have just taken the line of the informant to keep the applicant behind the bar. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has no criminal history except the said FIR No.0050 of 2022. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.12.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant carried the strong motive as is evident from the statement of wife of the deceased person Seebo Saini, whereby she categorically stated that the deceased person would have got a compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the electricity department and the applicant and his brother Veer Singh wanted to get the said amount from the deceased which he was not inclined to give to them. Learned counsel has further stated that the said strong motive is the force which prompted the accused persons to commit murder of his father. Learned counsel has stated that there is no cause of falsely implicating the applicant.
7. Learned A.G.A. has also reiterated the arguments tendered by learned counsel for the informant.
8. The motive is a double-edged sword and if it can be a reason for committing the crime, it may also be a reason for false implication.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the information at the police station was furnished by the nephew of the informant Sushil Saini and the informant had accompanied him to the police station as also the fact that FIR is
delayed by more than twenty hours, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Bijendra involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023 "
terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted or not even though a period of more than six months has has rolled by, the learned counsel for applicant could not give any satisfactory reply. the date of lodging of the F.I.R.
Order Date :- 6.11.2023 YK
Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail granted to the accused/meetings terrorizing witnesses justifies cancellation.
Whether absence of Section 173 report after six months constitutes sufficient ground to cancel bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Indrapal
Bijendra
Yashwant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
