Allowed

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024BAIL/2530/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed under Section 302 IPC. The applicant, charged with murder, was released on bail citing weak prosecution evidence, deletion of a co-accused, and lack of motive, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to filing a personal bond and providing two sureties, along with specific undertakings regarding court attendance and cooperation.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48289

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2530 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaya Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 28.04.2023 in Case Crime No.91 of 2023, S.T. No.1198 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Ataria, District- Sitapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards impugned FIR wherein the specific allegation has been levelled against three persons including the present applicant, however, during the course of investigation, name of the accused no.3, namely, Lakhana has been deleted. There is no eye witness account in the present case. As per statement of the informant and eye witness, they have only seen that the present applicant and other co-accused persons were running from the place of incident where the victim was lying in a pool of blood. The victim died at the place of incident in question. Learned counsel has stated that the motive, so indicated in the prosecution story, is so weak inasmuch as the present applicant may not kill his sister-in-law (bhabhi) for the reason that after ten years of marriage of his brother with the victim, no child born out of the wedlock. The present applicant would be having no benefit of any kind whatsoever if his brother was not having any issue.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further, co-accused Ram Devi, having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8177 of 2023, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the

¶10

present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that the specific allegation has been levelled against three persons including the present applicant, however, during the course of investigation, name of accused no. 3, namely, Lakhana has been deleted; there is no eye witness account in the present case; there is no motive to commit such offence and the prosecution story is so weak inasmuch as the present applicant may not kill his sister-in-law (bhabhi) for the reason that after ten years of marriage of his brother with the victim, no child born out of the wedlock; the applicant is having no prior criminal history; co-accused Ram Devi, having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant- Sandeep be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶18

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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 sufficient 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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 RBS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rahul Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Mittal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Parthviraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jal Shakti (Minor Irrigation) Lko. and 4 Others

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.