Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024BAIL/5629/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a kidnap-for-ransom and murder case where the applicant's implication rested solely on police-custody confessions of co-accused, with no recovery from him. Citing parity with an enlarged co-accused and prolonged incarceration since October 2022, the court granted bail on standard conditions without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Case Crime No.181 of 2022 on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with six enumerated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80397

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5629 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Deepak Singh,Sandeep Kumar Pal 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 State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.181 of 2022, under Sections 364-A, 504, 506, 302, 34, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Dubagga, District Lucknow.

¶8

The F.I.R. in question was lodged alleging therein that the brother 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 the 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.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-

¶10

accused persons namely, Ashish, Dhiraj Kumar Maurya and Rajesh Gautam. Nothing is recovered from the applicant. The role assigned to the present applicant is similar to that of coaccused Suraj Gautam who was assigned the general role of throttling by the aforesaid co-accused persons in their confessional statement given in the police custody. The coaccused Suraj Gautam has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13916 of 2023. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of Suraj Gautam (supra). Applicant is in jail since 03.10.2022. He submits that trial is going on at a very slow pace and out of eleven witnesses only three have been examined.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

A perusal of the record shows that prima facie there appears to be only material against the applicant i.e. statement of the coaccused persons in police custody. Apart from this, there appears to be no other material against the applicant. The confessional statement of the co-accused persons in police custody without recovery is a weak evidence.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.10.2022, confessional statement of the aforesaid coaccused persons so also the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Suraj Gautam (supra) and the stage of trial and also the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 , without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of

¶15

parity .

¶16

Let the applicant Mukesh Kumar 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:

¶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 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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

¶23

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. 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

Syed Zamin Abbas Rizvi @ Yameen Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shahid @ Kallan @ Shahid Ali Sekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secy. U.P. Lko. and Another