Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024BAIL/9139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC Section 167 read with Section 437 CrPC in a murder case involving the drowning death of a 25-year-old individual, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail. The court noted initial reports did not allege the deceased went with the accused, though later recovered items were found via FS by the informant.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail after executing personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each and complying with specified conditions including appearing in hearings and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60574

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9139 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey,Kusuma Devi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

AND

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8008 of 2024 Applicant :- Panchu @ Ram Vilas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivesh Nath Dubey,Vivek Bhooshan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajnish Kumar Singh,Shashank Vikram Shah

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State; Shri Shashank Vikram Shah, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶8

2. The applicants seek enlargement on bail in FIR No.199 of 2024, under Section 304, 201 IPC, P.S. Wazirganj, District Gonda.

¶9

3. In terms of the FIR registered on 17.05.2024 it was alleged that on 14.05.2024 at about 12 noon, son of the informant aged about 25 years had gone with the two accused for taking bath in a lake where the said two persons pushed him in the lake as a result whereof he drowned to death. It was also stated that mobile and clothes of the son of the informant were hidden at some other place. It was also stated that the body of the victim was retracted from the lake.

¶10

4. In the light of the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicants draws my attention to a missing person report given and contained in Annexure - 1 wherein it was stated that the son of the informant had gone on 14.05.2024 at about 12 noon towards his agricultural field and did not return back and was missing; no allegation of the deceased going alongwith the applicants was stated. Subsequently, a report was lodged when the body was recovered stating that on 14.05.2024 son of the informant had gone alongwith his motorcycle and has not returned back and his body was found near the lake alongwith the keys of the motorcycle.

¶11

5. In the light of the said, learned counsel for the applicants argues that no such information with regard to the deceased

¶12

going alongwith the applicants was given either on 14.05.2024 or on 15.05.2024. The postmortem report on record indicates the cause of death as ante mortem drowning and five contusion injuries were observed on the body of the deceased which are on the left side elbow, right side back of chest, right shoulder, right side face and left forearm, which, according to the applicants, can result while falling in the lake which is full of stones. It is argued that in the initial two reports furnished, there was no mention of deceased going alongwith the applicants. Subsequently, the version was improved by the informant as well as his wife. He further argues that apart from the statements, there is no material to link the applicants with the offence in question, as such, the applicants who have no criminal history and are custody since 22.05.2024 & 18.05.2024 respectively may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA strongly oppose the bail application by arguing that apart from the specific statement given by the informant and his wife under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the recovery was also affected in the presence of independent witnesses where at the instance and pointing out of the applicants, the T-Shirt and the mobile of the deceased was recovered from a bush near the place of the incident and thus, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶14

7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima-facie , the events as unfold is that there is no mention of the deceased going with the applicants; admittedly as per the version of the informant, the deceased had gone on his motorcycle and did not return back and his body was recovered from a lake, as such, prima-facie , as per the postmortem report and the version, it appears to be a cause of death by drowning. Thus, the material to suggest active implication of the applicants is, prima-facie , missing, as such, the applicants who are in custody since 22.05.2024 & 18.05.2024 respectively and have no criminal history, are entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶15

8. Let the applicants Rajesh and Panchu @ Ram Vilas be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the

¶18

commission; and

¶19

(c) 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

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 nishant

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashutosh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sachin Nayar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

M/S Krishna Steels Thru. Proprietor Pramod Kumar vs Commissioner Commerical Tax Lko

M/S Krishna Steels Lko Thru Proprietor Pramod Kumar vs Commissioner Commercial Tax, Lko.U.P.

Masuk vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko