Allowed

Nitin Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024CRLA/6185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order in a case involving murder and SC/ST Act charges. The court found infirmities in the prosecution's evidence regarding the identification of appellants and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bonds and sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Nitin Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196417 RESERVED ON 11.12.2024 DELIVERED ON 16.12.2024

¶2

In Chamber

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6185 of 2024 Appellant :- Nitin Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ghanshyam Kumar Kesarwani, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the bail rejection order dated 08.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Bijnor in Bail Application Nos. 1895 of 2024, 2043 of 2024 and 2081 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of 2024 under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Himpur Deepa, District Bijnor.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated. They are neither named in the First Information Report nor they figure out in the CCTV footage of the DVD installed at the place of incident. Their names have been surfaced in the further statement (Majeed Bayan) of the first informant and the eye witness Govind. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there are two versions of the first informant and the injured naming two different sets of accused. The injured eye witness has not been able to correctly identify the accused from the CCTV footage. The appellants have been roped on the basis of a motorcycle which is shown in the CCTV footage recorded thereafter. Though the call detail report

¶8

(CDR) of the appellants is found to be on the spot but there is no CCTV footage of the appellant except of a motorcycle. According to the post mortem report, several incised and lacerated wound were found on the body of the deceased which does not corroborate with the statement of injured eye witness who stated that injury was caused with some heavy object.

¶9

The appellants are languishing in jail since 13.04.2024 and there is no criminal history against the appellants except the present case. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants-Nitin Kumar, Satish Kumar @ Pandit and Dharampal involved in Case Crime No. 39 of 2024 under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Himpur Deepa, District Bijnor be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount

¶15

2 of 3

¶16

to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶21

The appellants 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.12.2024

¶24

Puspendra

¶25

3 of 3

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitin Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Masood Akhtar vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Bhagwan Dass vs State of Up and 5 Others

Avnish Kumari and Another vs Jitendra Kumar

Dharmendra Rajbhar vs State of Up and 3 Others