Vaibhav Shukla S/O Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56664

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9128 of 2022 Applicant :- Vaibhav Shukla S/O Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla (Third Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Pandey,Anand Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amitabh Agarwal,Shailendra Singh Rajawat

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.

¶6

This is the third bail application. First application for bail has been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.9.2021 passed in Bail No.7098 of 2020. Second bail application has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Bail No.13667 of 2021.

¶7

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.7 of 2020 under Section 302, 504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the complaint lodged by the uncle of the deceased it is said that on the date of the incident his nephew, who is a jeweler, was sitting in his shop when the applicant came to the said shop and an altercation ensued pursuant to which the applicant fired from his weapon at the deceased on his chest and he succumbed to the said injury. The complainant in the said F.I.R. has submitted that he has witnessed the entire incident and subsequently during investigation statement of two eyewitness were recorded, namely, Vaibhava Kanojia and Tauheed Mansuri, who claimed to have been present on the said shop at the time of the incident and they are also eye witnesses to the said incident and they had seen the entire incident. Tauheed Mansuri had taken the deceased to the hospital where he died during treatment. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged only after the deceased was taken to the hospital.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail

¶10

since last four and a half years. After fifteen days' of the incident the Investigating Officer has introduced two eye witnesses, however, while lodging the first information report name of these two eye witnesses do not find place which shows that P.W.1 is not the eye witness. P.W. 2 though has supported the prosecution case in the chief, however, in the cross examination he has not supported the prosecution case. The eye witnesses Anas and Tauheed have been discharged by the prosecution for the reasons best know to them. Till date out of 22 witnesses only 3 witnesses have been examined. No eye witness is left to be examined. There is no chance of tempering the prosecution evidence. He further submits that no motive has been attributed to the present applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submit that it is a day light murder and the applicant is the sole accused. Incident has been covered in the CCTV camera. It is not a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant rebutting this, has submitted that CCTV footage/electronic camera, as alleged by the respondents, is of no help to them as no certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act has been obtained by the prosecution.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the complainant though has submitted that the applicant has examined the prosecution witnesses on several dates which has prolonged the case, however, does not dispute the fact that only three witnesses have been examined, no eye witness is left to be examined and only formal witness are yet to be examined.

¶15

Considering the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.1.2020; as per the status report of the trial court three witnesses could be examined so far and two witnesses have been discharged out of 22 witnesses, still 17 witnesses are yet to be examined; as also

¶16

considering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 (para 19) without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant, Vaibhav Shukla, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, 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:-

¶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 officer 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 sufficient 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 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.8.2024

¶26

Madhu

¶27

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

Vaibhav Shukla S/O Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla (Third Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Shukla S/O Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla (Third Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nankunna @ Shahid Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Arvind @ Arvind Tiwari and another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

A (Minor) Thru. Guardian/Father B - Juvenile Delinquent vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Tapassum @ Tabassum vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Chandra Verma @ Ram Chandr vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another