Allowed

Saurabh Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023CRLA/244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, theAllahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Saurabh Tyagi, convicted in a murder case under the SC/ST Act. The court granted bail due to the absence of eyewitness testimony, failure to record affidavits from witnesses, and lack of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Saurabh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 244 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Saurabh Tyagi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Uma Nath Pandey,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S/.T. Act), Ghaziabad, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 8841 of 2021 (Saurabh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) moved on behalf of the appellant in Case Crime No. 447 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201 176 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Teelamodh, District- Ghaziabad.

¶7

According to prosecution case, the informant had handed over the custody of his son, Bharat Bhushan alias Shaiki on 18.07.2021 to the appellant-accused, Saurabh Tyagi for his deaddiction at Snehi Foundation, Defence Colony, Ghaziabad. On 23.07.2021, at 5 p.m., the informant visited the de-addiction foundation and enquired about his son from the employee, Rahul, who told him that at 7 a.m., his son had left the foundation without informing anyone. The informant searched for his son in his relationship but he could not find him. He lodged missing ( gumshudgi ) report at P.S.- Teelamodh on 28.07.2021. In between Rahul, told the informant that on 21.07.2021, the appellant-accused, Saurabh Tyagi and his son, Mehul beat the informant's son with lathi and danda and when he stopped crying, then at night, they carried his son on a vehicle to an unknown place. Thereafter, informant's son, Shaiki, did not return back. After three days, appellant-accused closed the de-addiction centre and discharged all its employees working there. On 11.08.2021, informant's acquaintance, Raj Kumar told the informant that in the night of 21.07.2021, he saw the appellant and his son carrying the body of informant's son in a white car. On 14.08.2021, the appellant-accused was arrested while he was driving Dzire car DL 8 CT 2544. He confessed that he had killed the informant's son, Bharat

¶8

Bhushan alias Shaiki, and has thrown his body in the jungle of Shehzani Tagaan. On 14.08.2021, on the pointing out of appellant-accused, blood-stained clothes of the deceased and spade as weapon of assault were recovered. A pit situated on the side of rain-fed canal ( nala ) which was dried from which pieces of muscles of deceased's body was recovered. Coaccused, Himanshu, who confessed that later appellant had murdered informant's son and he himself, the appellant-accused and his son, assisted in disposing of the body of the deceased.

¶9

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that :-

¶10

(i) the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to suspicion;

¶11

(ii) there is no eye witness of the occurrence;

¶12

(iii) the first information report has been lodged after some delay and no explanation for the same has been given;

¶13

(iv) co-accused, Himanshu @ Hannu has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4706 of 2021;

¶14

(v) statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the alleged eye witnesses, Rahul and Raj Kumar have not been recorded and statements of witnesses which have been recorded is merely hearsay evidence;

¶15

(vi) alleged recovery of clothes and parts of body of deceased and weapon of offence is not genuine and is planted;

¶16

(vii) the D.N.A. of the alleged part of the body of the deceased and his parents could not be tallied and there is no evidence that the blood on the clothes is that of the deceased;

¶17

(viii) the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act will not be applicable as prosecution has not collected evidence regarding essential ingredients of the offence;

¶18

(ix) the appellant is in jail since 15.08.2021 and has explained the criminal history of one case in the rejoinder affidavit. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and have submitted that the deceased was handed over to the appellant-accused for his de-addiction and from his de-addiction camp, he disappeared. The appellant did not tell the informant about his son leaving his de-addiction camp. It

¶20

has next been submitted that the informant has identified the clothes of the deceased which he had given him while he was handed over to the appellant. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶21

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, the fact that there is no eye witness of the incident, the fact that forensic report does not connect the blood found on the alleged clothes with that of the deceased and the D.N.A. found on the blood could not match with that of the parents of the deceased, that the statement of alleged eye witnesses, Rahul and Raj Kumar, has not been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses have only stated the involvement of accused on the basis of hearsay evidence and the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶23

Let the appellant, Saurabh Tyagi , 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:-

¶24

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless his presence is exempted by the court.

¶25

(ii) That the appellant 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.

¶26

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶27

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶28

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶29

It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 KS

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Monu @ Ghanghru Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Sunil Plastic Industries Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shikha Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Samiullah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shani Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Niharika Chaubey @ Neha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others