Allowed

Awadhesh Kumar Alias Awadhesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024BAIL/3182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application regarding a murder charge, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail after finding that the key prosecution witnesses became hostile during trial, thereby changing the circumstances relative to the earlier rejection.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions including non-tampering with evidence and fulfilling all trial dates.

Awadhesh Kumar Alias Awadhesh vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49830

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3182 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Alias Awadhesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Rawat,Ram Samujh Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satyam Mishra holding brief of Ms. Jyoti Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

This is the second bail application of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.445 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Gosaiganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

While rejecting the first bail application, liberty was granted to the applicant to file second bail application after the statements of Renu, the eye witness and the sister of the applicant as well as Pushpa, mother of the applicant is examined. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.2964 of 2023 was dismissed by this court vide order dated 31.01.2024, the order is extracted below:-

¶9

"1. Heard Ms. Jyoti Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.445 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Gosaiganj, District Lucknow. 3. It is alleged in the First Information Report, lodged by present applicant, that on 23.09.2022 at about 04:00 pm while the applicant was at his home, he heard cry of his father. After hearing it, he went towards Neval Kheda and came to know that Ram Singh, Ram Bhola, Vandana and Archana along with some unknown relatives have beaten his father by kick and fists,

¶10

lathi and danda. When the applicant reached on the spot, the accused persons had ran away. He call police on dialing 112 and put the dead body of his father at his home. In the morning, the dead body was found in the new home. Suspicion has been raised on aforesaid named persons in the F.I.R. that they have committed murder of the father of the applicant.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is informant in this case. Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police. The named persons Ram Singh, Ram Bhola, Vandana and Archana have committed murder of his father just to show the good work. The applicant is in jail since 29.09.2022.

¶12

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that in the post mortem report, eight ante mortem injuries have been found. Out of eight, three are incised wounds. Cause of death is ante mortem throttling. He submits that sister of the applicant namely, Renu in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of committing murder of her father on her two brothers. He next submits that that the knife used in committing the murder of the deceased has been recovered from the pond of the village on the pointing out of the accused persons and there are independent witnesses of recovery of the weapon of assault.

¶13

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement of Renu, its a case of false implication.

¶14

7. Rebutting the same, learned A.G.A. has submitted that written application has been given by the prosecution witness Renu making allegation against the two brothers including the applicant.

¶15

8. Perused the record.

¶16

9. In the post mortem following injuries have been found:"1- Contusion 12 X 6 cm present on Rt. side of head just above Rt. ear.

¶17

2- Contusion 6 X 4 cm present on back of head at exposed.

¶18

3- Abraded contusion 8 X 1 cm present on Rt. side of forehead 2 cm above from Rt. Eyebrow.

¶19

4- Abraded contusion 4 X 3 cm present on Rt. side of face just lateral to Rt. eye.5-I.W. would 7 X 1 cm skin deep present on Lt. side of neck 7 cm below from Lt, ear.

¶20

5-I.W. would 7 X 1 cm skin deep present on Lt. side of neck 7 cm below from Lt, ear.

¶21

6- I.W. would 6 X 0.2 cm skin deep present on Lt. side of neck 1 cm below from injury no. 5.

¶22

7- I.W. would 4 X 0.1 cm skin deep present on Lt. side of neck 1 cm below from injury no. 6.

¶23

margins of injuries no 5,6,7 are sharp, clean cut and wall defined.

¶24

8- Contusion 7 X 3 cm present on Rt. side of neck 8 cm below from Rt. ear."

¶25

The sister of the applicant namely, Renu is the eye witness in this case who not only has given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but also has given an application to the concerned police station affirming the role of the applicant in committing murder. The mother of applicant namely, Pushpa is also an eye witness.

¶26

10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the post mortem report, this Court finds that its a gruesome murder which has been executed in a most heinous manner, therefore, no case for bail is made out.

¶27

11. The bail application is rejected.

¶28

12. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court concerned.

¶29

13. Learned trial court is directed to record the statement of Renu and Pushpa within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

14. Applicant is at liberty to move a fresh bail application, after the statements of Renu and Pushpa are recorded." Learned counsel for applicant submits that both prosecution witnesses Renu and Pushpa have been examined before the trial court who have been declared hostile, they have not supported the prosecution case from the stage of examination in chief itself. He submits that applicant is innocent. The named persons Ram Singh, Ram Bhola, Vandana and Archana have committed murder of the deceased who was his father. He submits that applicant is not a previous convict however, he is languishing in jail since 29.09.2022.

¶31

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however, could not

¶32

dispute the fact that eye witnesses Renu and Pushpa have been declared hostile.

¶33

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2022, applicant is not a previous convict, statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been recorded who have not supported the prosecution case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶34

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶35

Let the applicant -Awadhesh Kumar Alias Awadhesh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

(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.

¶40

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶41

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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶44

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

Awadhesh Kumar Alias Awadhesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Kumar Alias Awadhesh v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Rehan @ Rehan vs Special A.C.J.M. (C.B.I) (a.P.) Lko. and Another

Raj Mishra @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pushker Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Manish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Deepak Gupta @ Ram Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home