Allowed

Susheel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024/1196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed second bail application in a murder case alleging arson, holding it fit to enlarge the applicant given the hostile stance of prosecution witnesses and lack of criminal antecedent. Bail granted on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific_conditions to ensure presence and no interference with witnesses.

Susheel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15097

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1196 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Susheel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J .

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 1797/2020.

¶8

As per allegation in the FIR, the accused-applicant is husband of the deceased, who was having six children out of wedlock; the accused-applicant used to assault the deceased regularly; the accused-applicant is a habitual drinker; on the date of incident, it is alleged that the accused-applicant sprinkled kerosene oil on deceased and set her on fire.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of first bail application, six prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined. Out of them, PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have been declared hostile. PW-2 and PW-3 have also not supported the prosecution case.

¶10

It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2019 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that

¶12

in the dying declaration, the deceased has stated to the magistrate that the applicant assaulted her in the evening and at 4:00 am, he sprinkled kerosene oil upon her. She has further submitted that postmortem report of the victim corroborates the dying declaration.

¶13

On due consideration to the fact that six prosecution witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution case; there is no chance of tampering evidence as the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2019 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Susheel, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 314/2019, under Sections 323/504/302 IPC, Police Station - Maholi, District - Sitapur, be released on bail on his 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:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of

¶20

this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Susheel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Imamul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Alok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

Suraj Gupta Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt, Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others