Allowed

Ashish Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024BAIL/12888/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail application for kidnapping for ransom and murder under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC. Applicant in jail since October 2022 with no criminal antecedents; only three of ten prosecution witnesses examined. Court relied on parity with bailed co-accused and Apex Court precedent and enlarged him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ashish Kumar released on bail under FIR No. 181/2022 upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with standard bail conditions.

Ashish Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83282

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12888 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Pal,Desh Deepak Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

This is third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 2990 of 2023. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 23.04.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 4405 of 2024.

¶9

The F.I.R. in question was lodged alleging therein that brother of the informant had left the site on 25.9.2022 on a motorcycle and subsequently a phone call was received demanding a ransom of Rupees one crore, failing which, it was threatened that his brother would be killed. No one was named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, based upon a confessional statement of the coaccused which is on record as Annexure No.6 wherein he admitted that he had abducted and the entire conspiracy was done by one Rajesh. He further admitted that the said co accused alongwith two other co-accused including the applicant had killed the brother of the informant and had thrown the body in a river.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused

¶11

Mukesh Kumar who was assigned the role of throttling and upon whose pointing out, recovery was made, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 5629 of 2024. The other co-accused Dheeraj Kumar Maurya who was assigned the role of catching hold the deceased has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 13817/2023. The applicant is assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased and also of administering the injection to the deceased due to which, he fell dizzy. It has been further submitted that out of ten prosecution witnesses, only three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.10.2022 without having any criminal antecedent. 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.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that only three prosecution witnesses have been examined out of ten prosecution witnesses; the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.10.2022 without having any criminal antecedents, so also considering the the bail orders of co-accused persons namely Mukesh Kumar and Dheeraj Kumar Maurya and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of "Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 ", 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.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant/ Ashish Kumar involved in Case Crime/FIR

¶17

No. 181/2022, under Sections 364-A/504/302/201/34/120-B IPC, Police Station - Dubagga, District - Lucknow 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 R.C.

¶25

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

Ashish Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

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

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

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

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

Neelam Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ravi Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Lko and 4 Others