Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31677

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1292 of 2023

Applicant :- Pyare Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Madhulika Yadav,Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 19.10.2022. While rejecting the first bail application, the Court had taken into consideration the statement of the learned A.G.A. to the effect that the applicant had a motive to kill the deceased as he was a witness against the applicant in Case Crime No. 68 of 2017, under Section 307 IPC and his testimony could have got the applicant convicted of the said offence. The Court had also taken into consideration the motive emanating from the statement of two witnesses Lala Ram and Vipin Kumar.

¶8

3 . The counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant was not named in the FIR. He draws my attention to the FIR, wherein it was alleged that the brother in law of the informant Sandeep Kumar had left his house on 01.11.2021 on his motor cycle and has not returned back, subsequently, it was apprehended that he has been kidnapped by some unknown person. The body of the brother in law of the informant was recovered, subsequently, statement was given by the informant and the

¶9

father of the deceased to the effect that he had heard certain women folk talking in the village that the act in question was done by the applicant and three other accused. In the light of the said statement, the applicant was linked with the offence in question. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that subsequently during trial, Munish Chandra, who is the father of the deceased has specifically deposed that he never disclosed the name of anyone nor had he heard any women talking or taking any names. The counsel for the applicant further argues that the motive of killing the deceased was linking the applicant with the offence in question was also not existence in as much as the deceased in the said case had turned hostile in his deposition recorded on 16.03.2019, thus there was no foundation to allege motive against the applicant. He also draws my attention to the various statements recorded during the trial, who have not implicated the applicant in any manner whatsoever.

¶10

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

5. Considering the subsequent statements and the report which has been furnished by the trial court to suggest that six witnesses have been examined so far and the I.O., despite passing of an order of stopping his salary is not coming forward for deposition, leads to a conclusion that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. Considering all the facts recorded above coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 07.11.2021 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

6. Let the applicant Pyare Lal be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 584 of 2021, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Gola, District Kheri, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

7 . The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial without granting any unnecessary adjournments either to the parties.

¶17

8 . The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to ensure that the Investigating OfÏcer namely Krishna Kumar, appears for deposing without taking any adjournment in the said case on the date fixed.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 Arun

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pyare Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyare Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Mohit Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Badal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Dinesh Kumar Gupta @ D.K. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rafiq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko.