Allowed

Govind Prasad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024BAIL/2543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of an applicant facing charges under Sections 302/504/506/201 IPC. The decision was based on the applicant's incarceration since 2015, the Supreme Court's ruling in K.A. Najeeb, the absence of criminal history, and parity with a co-accused already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and compliance with bail terms.

Govind Prasad vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27537

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2543 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Govind Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivakant Tewari,Kaushal Kishore Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the informant along with his son Manoj Tiwari, Ram Naresh Tiwari and grandson Ashutosh Tiwari were going on bicycles at about 10 a.m. to Biswa. The present applicant along with the co-accused persons cordoned the deceased Ram Naresh Tiwari due to previous enmity, thereafter, the coaccused fired from the front side and the applicant fired from the back side. Sushil Kumar has been assigned the role of exhortion. Due to that firing the deceased fell from the bicycle and died on the spot.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2015. Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He further submits that all the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined, hence, there is no chance of tempering the prosecution witness. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

He submits that co-accused Prem Kumar @ Hasnu @ Ramendra Kumar Shukla has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2021 passed in Bail No.3092 of 2019. He seeks parity with the bail order of the co-accused.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶13

Perused the record also the report received from the learned trial court which shows that six prosecuiton witnesses including the formal witnesses have been examined. Prima facie it appears that there is no chance of tempering the prosecution witnesses, co-accused Prem Kumar who has been assigned the similar role that of the applicant, has been enlarged on bail.

¶14

In view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021, SC 712, so also the period of incarceration gone into by the applicant and the fact that coaccused who has been assigned similar role has been granted bail, the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2015 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, Govind Prasad, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 308/2015, under Sections 302/504/506/201 IPC, Police Station Biswan, District Sitapur, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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

¶20

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 :- 3.4.2024 Madhu

¶25

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

Govind Prasad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Prasad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Adesh Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Shiva Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.