Surenrda Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:950

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 465 of 2023 Applicant :- Surenrda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Prosecution case is that on 08.02.2022 an application was given by one Lalit Kumar regarding a dead body found in Betwa Nala, P.S. Sandila and perusal of that application, it appears that the deceased fell down due to heavy drinking. The information was registered on 08.02.2022 as rapat No. 23. On the said report, inquest was done. When the complainant came to know about the death of his son, he lodged an FIR dated 10.02.2022. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 11.02.2022.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 20.06.2022 i.e. after four months of the incident and after recording the statements of various prosecution witnesses, when nothing was found by the investigating officer, a statement of one Vinod Kashyap was recorded wherein it has been stated that the applicant had made an extrajudicial statement in front of him that he has committed the crime and on 07.07.2022 one Prabhu in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has given the last seen evidence. More than four months delay in recording the evidence of Vinod Kashyap and Prabhu is itself shows that they have been planted by the I.O. There is no recovery made from the applicant. Chain of circumstance is not complete.

¶8

It has been further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 21.08.2022; evidence of last seen is not enough to convict the applicant.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the fact that the applicant is

¶12

languishing in jail since 21.08.2022 without having any criminal history; delay in recording the statements of Vinod Kashyap and Prabhu has not been explained by the prosecution and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Surenrda, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 53/2022, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station - Sandila, District - Hardoi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.1.2024/R.C.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surenrda v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surenrda v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. 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

Jaikaran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Veeru Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. I.O. and 3 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Parmendra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko.

Angad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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