Allowed

Suraj Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024/159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a murder case under Sections 147, 302, 506 IPC where eye witnesses' unexplained silence and lack of motive weakened the case. Court noted circumstantial evidence, no criminal history, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, with conditions on tampering, witness pressure, attendance and adjournments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12384

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 159 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in F.I.R. No.158 of 2022 under Section 147, 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 7.6.2022 about 11.00 a.m. the deceased Vinodl Tewari went with Shatrughna Nishad and Suraj Nishad (the applicant) on the motorcycle and when he did not return till evening then informant and his younger brother started searching and found his dead body near Khairaha graveyard. It is further alleged that the informant inquired with Suraj Nishad and Shatrughna Nishad. They refused about the incident and the accused persons threatened him for life.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eye witness to the incident. Neither any specific role has been assigned to the applicant. In the inquest, the informant was present. Cause of death in the postmortem is hemorrhage and shock due to ante-mortem injury. Some quantity of

¶10

alcoholic smell was also noticed. General allegations were leveled by the informant, his mother and wife of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the alleged eye witness Rakesh Kumar Verma has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which it is alleged that eyewitness did not inform the family of the deceased however he was present and also no attempt to save the deceased was made by him. Eye witness Ram Milan Mishra have been introduced on 22.7.2022 after delay of more than one month. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has not assigned any specific role to the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had no motive. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is in jail since 10.6.2022. The prosecution has no independent witness. Lastly, it is contended that as per the First Information Report the incident has taken place on 7.6.2022 at 11.00 a.m. but post mortem report shows, at column no.5, that decomposition of the body had started. He has relied on Modi Jurisprudence. According to which, rigor mortis lasts to 24-48 hours in winter and 18-36 hours in summer. The incident since has taken place in summer and the post mortem was conducted on the very next date there is no chance for the body to have started putrefaction or decomposition. It can only start after the period of rigor mortis is over, thus, it is contended that medical evidence does not support the prosecution story.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the

¶13

complainant have opposed the bail prayer. It has been stated by learned A.G.A. that there is eye witness account as well as last scene account. However, no reason can be assigned as to why the eye witnesses remained silent till their statement was recorded and have not informed the police neither to the family members of the deceased. Perused the record so also the postmortem report. The following antemortem injuries have been received by the deceased:-

¶14

"1. Abrasion of size 1.5 cmx1.5 cm on Rt side forehead 6 cm above Rt. eyebrow.

¶15

2. Contusion of size 2 cm x 2 cm on Rt temporal region 8 cm above mastoid process"

¶16

On due consideration to the non-explanation of the the silence of the prosecution regarding the unnatural behaviour of the eye witness in not informing the police or the family of the deceased till their statement was recorded shows that it may be the case of circumstantial evidence coupled with the lack of motive to the applicant and period of incarceration gone into by the applicant and the fact that he has no criminal history, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Suraj Nishad be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction

¶18

of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(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 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.

¶23

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(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

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Madhu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Nishad 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

Similar cases

Harikesh @ Matole Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Abu Sahma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Murad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Arshad Iqbal Alias Arsh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.