Allowed

Om Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/2334/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against refusal of bail in a murder and SC/ST related matter allowed. The High Court set aside the trial court's order denying bail, noting that the primary eye witness denied the prosecution story and the injured did not implicate the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order denying bail set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding court attendance.

Om Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2391

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2334 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Om Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Kumar Trivedi,Anuj Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Reshu Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 306 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 566 of 2021, under Sections 304, 326, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case only being the associate of the other accused persons. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of Roshan was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, he categorically stated that Sunil poured the petrol on him and Abhishek put fire. It is also submitted that general allegations have been levelled by the informant of the present case, namely, Rajkumari Singh, but during the course of trial, he was examined as P.W. 1 and she categorically denied the prosecution story. It is next submitted that the trial court has wrongly rejected the application of the appellant without considering the statement of the informant Roshan @ Ankit Kanaujia,who later on died. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and in jail since 26.06.2021,

¶9

is entitled for bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that appellant was present at the time of incident. However, they do not dispute the fact that the informant has not supported the prosecution version in his deposition before the trial court and the injured (died later on), has made allegation against the Sunil as well as Abhishek.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, statement of the injured as well as other relevant documents including the deposition of the P.W. 1 before the trial court, it is evident that P.W. 1, who is alleged eye witness, has not supported the prosecution version before the trial court. It is also evident that the injured in her statement before the Investigating OfÏcer, has not made allegation against the appellant.

¶12

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶13

Impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 306 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 566 of 2021, under Sections 304, 326, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant-applicant, Om Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant 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.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.1.2024 VKS

¶20

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

Om Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Vikki Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

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

Nithuri Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

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

Samod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow and Another

Mangla Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another