Allowed

Madan Murari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024/303/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted regular anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to four applicants charged with murder, undoing an interim order. The grant was based on the case being one of no injury, pending civil litigation, and lack of material adverse to the applicant after the counter-affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Granted regular anticipatory bail to Madan Murari and three others until the disposal of the trial.

Madan Murari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69355

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 303 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Madan Murari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2021, under sections 307/504/506 of IPC, Police Station-Pachdewra, District-Hardoi.

¶8

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that after thoroughly considering the factual matrix of the case, the interim bail was granted by this court to the applicants vide order dated 08-02-2023. The order dated 08-02-2023 is quoted hereinunder :-

¶9

"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 139/2021, under Sections 307/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Pachdewra, District Hardoi.

¶10

Heard Shri Aditya Mishra holding brief of Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

As per the prosecution case in the F.I.R. while the complainant and others went for harvesting the wheat crop on their lease land by a combine then the applicants came and abused them and with an intent to kill fired on them.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. is nothing but a counter blast to the already filed suit under Section 198 of U.P. Revenue Code by applicant no. 1 on 25.09.2019. The memo of the suit is on record as Annexure No. 3.

¶13

It is a case of no injury. There is no independent witnesses to the incident. The land on which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place is subject matter of various

¶14

civil/revenue litigation.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicant no.1 has a criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 24 and 35 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. However, the other applicants have no criminal antecedents.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application submitting that applicant no. 1 has not properly explained his criminal history.

¶17

Rebutting the same, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will file a supplementary afÏdavit giving proper explanation to the criminal history of one case of applicant no.1.

¶18

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

¶19

List on 16.03.2023.

¶20

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record and the fact fact that the place of occurrence is subject matter of various civil and revenue litigation; it is a no injury case; charge sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶23

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶24

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court."

¶25

From perusal of the bail application, it transpires that the applicants have specifically stated in paragraph no. 26 of the bail application that except apart one of the applicants, there is no other criminal antecedent of the applicants and the same has not been denied in paragraph 26 of the Counter AfÏdavit filed by the State. Further,

¶26

this court also finds that in paragraph no. 42 of the bail application, it has been stated that no one is injured and as such, it is a no injury case, whereas in reply to the same, in paragraph no. 45 of the Counter AfÏdavit, the same has not been denied. The coordinate Bench of this court while considering the aforesaid two aspects of the matter, had granted interim bail to the applicants on 08-02-2023 and now, after filing of the Counter AfÏdavit, no adverse material has been placed by the state against the applicants.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant regular anticipatory bail is hereby disposed of while granting bail to the applicants namely, Madan Murari, Arvind Mishra @ Angad @ Arvind Kumar,Anuj Mishra and Ram Mohan till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions :-

¶28

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police ofÏcer as and when required;

¶29

(ii) that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶31

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶32

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶33

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection.

¶34

Order Date :- 15.10.2024

¶35

AKS

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madan Murari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Murari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raju @ Raju Pasi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shakti Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Suhail Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amar Bahadur Gharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Smt. Shyama Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.