Dismissed

Shyamu Alias Lala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC13 May 2024/2259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the second bail application of Shyamu Alias Lala implicated in a murder trial. Relying on prosecution witness testimony linking the applicant to the fatal assault, the Court held it was not a fit case for bail despite Supreme Court precedents on trial delays, but directed the trial to conclude within a year.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected; the trial was directed to be concluded within one year.

Shyamu Alias Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36946

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2259 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shyamu Alias Lala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 159 of 2020, under Sections 302/450 I.P.C., Police Station-Gadaganj, DistrictRaebareli. The first bail application has been rejected by means of the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report (F.I.R.) lodged against- (1) Ramu, (2) Shyamu alias Lala (applicant herein), (3) Suraj and (4) Baijnath alias Junglee on 6th of July 2022 at 1.15 hrs, stating that on 4th of July 2020 the accused persons had put up wooden Gumti in front of a grove and the informant's husband had objected that the grove was under joint-ownership and no Gumati should be put without partition of the grove. Because of the aforesaid dispute, at about 10:00 p.m. on 5th of July 2020 the accused persons reached upon the rooftop, where the informant's husband was laying down and they attacked him with sticks and axe, causing serious injuries to him and he died while he was on the way to the hospital. The FIR further states that the informant, her mother-in-law Maiki, niece Anjali and two small children, who were present in the house, tried to save the deceased, but the accused persons did not leave him.

¶9

In the statement of the informant recorded under section 161, CrPC she stated that the wooden Gumti had been put up by the applicant and she reiterated the FIR version. In the statement of the informant's mother in law Maiki and the informant's niece Anjali, they reiterated the F.I.R. version and stated that they had seen the incident in the light of an electric bulb. A copy of the

¶10

relevant extract of case-diary annexed with the affidavit, filed in support of the bail-application indicates that the applicant had confessed that he had made an assault with an axe on the head of the deceased and he had hidden the axe inside the house, and the sticks had been thrown away in Ganga river. The axe was recovered from the house of the applicant on his pointing out.

¶11

The trial court has recorded statements of four prosecution witnesses. P.W.-1-Nirmala Devi, wife of the deceased had been examined by the trial court before rejection of the first bail application and she has supported the prosecution case. P.W-2Kumari Anjali, niece of the deceased and she had also been examined prior to rejection of the first bail application. P.W-3 is a doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased prior to rejection of the first bail application. He has stated that there were as many as 7 antemortem injuries on the dead body, including six injuries above his neck. The deceased had suffered an incised wound of size 6cm X 1cm on the parital bone and the injuries were sufficient to cause death.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the role of causing head injuries with an axe has been assigned to the applicant and it is alleged that the axe was recovered on pointing out of the applicant from his house, whereas P.W.-1 has stated that the axe was lying on the rooftop and she had handed over to the police. This makes the recovery of the axe doubtful. This statement had been recorded and had been considered while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant and this cannot be a ground for filing the second bail application.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the delay in conclusion of trial is a good ground to release the applicant on bail. He has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Data Ram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Union of India vs. K. A. Najeeb, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 713.

¶14

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Data Ram Singh (supra) has held that there is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do in the facts and the circumstances of a case .

¶15

Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 in the said case of Data Ram Singh (supra) has held that we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."

¶16

Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted bail to the appellantData Ram Singh after taking into consideration the peculiar facts of that case, in which the investigation had continued for seven months but the appellant was not arrested by the investigating officer. He had filed a writ petition for quashing of the F.I.R and he was granted two months time to appear before the trial court which indicates that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or would hamper the trial in any manner. It is also significant to note that the appellant-Data Ram Singh was alleged to have committed economic offence involving a sum of Rs.37.00 Lakh.

¶17

In the case of K. A. Najeeb (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the order granting bail to the respondent-K.A. Najeeb after taking into consideration the peculiar fact of that case that accused has already spent a considerable period of time in custody and N.I.A. proposed to examine as many as 276 witnesses and there was no likelihood of trial being concluded in near future. In the present case, examination of the prosecution witnesses is almost complete and it is not that the trial cannot conclude in the near future.

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, particularly the fact that all the witnesses have consistently stated that the applicant had assaulted by an axe causing a head injury to the deceased which resulted in his death; the prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution allegation and that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, I do not find it to be a fit case warranting exercise of discretion of this court by enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the second bail application is also rejected.

¶20

However, as the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2020 and the examination of prosecution witnesses is about to conclude and all the prosecution witnesses except the I.O. have already been examined, it is provided that the trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and shall

¶21

make every endeavour to conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 akhilesh/-

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶24

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

Shyamu Alias Lala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamu Alias Lala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad Thru. Auth. Signatory Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vs Amit Saxena

Akbar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Harish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 6 Others

Anil Kumar Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Labour DEPTT.-2 Lko. and 2 Ors.