Allowed

Kaushinder v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024CRLA/6864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the appellant in a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, allowing the application against the Additional Sessions Judge's rejection order, noting insufficient evidence regarding the appellant's role despite CCTV footage and co-accused confessions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; bail order setting aside rejection order; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Kaushinder vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145721

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6864 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Kaushinder Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1992 of 2024 (Kaushinder Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C and Section 3(1)5 of S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station-Hastinapur, DistrictMeerut.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case he was not named in the F.I.R. It was lodged by the informant, who is said to be eye witness of the incident. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the name of the present applicant was brought into light on the basis of CCTV footage, even when the statement of informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. he did not disclose the name of present appellant which shows that either informant was not present on the place of occurrence or presence of present appellant in CCTV footage is false. It is also submitted that confessional statement of co-accused Prince and Omendra alias Sobindra were recorded by I.O. in which they disclosed the fact that the tamancha was provided by the Omendra alias Sobindra and present applicant, who is real mama of Deepanshu. It is also submitted that even in CCTV footage the appellant has not been seen while opening fire on the deceased persons. In this way, it cannot be said that the present appellant caused murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that from where CCTV footage was recovered by the I.O. no any witness was introduced and no any

¶9

identification parade was conducted regarding identification of the appellant. Nothing was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the present appellant and there is no any criminal history of the appellant. Only being mama of co-accused Deepanshu present appellant has also been roped in the present case. Likewise, his brother Omendra alias Sobindra also brought into light. Omendra alias Sobindra has already been granted bail bail whose presence was not seen in the CCTV footage. This fact also shows the falsity of the case that Omendra alias Sobindra and present appellant were also present on the place of occurrence at the time of alleged incident. Appellant is in jail since 02.08.2023, therefore, request to set aside the bail rejection order and release the appellant on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the presence of present appellant was also seen in CCTV footage that was taken into possession by the I.O. Two unknown persons were also named in the F.I.R. In this way, it cannot be said that presence of present appellant was doubtful. He also contended that the appellant was identified by the informant on the basis of CCTV footage, therefore, it cannot be said that due to non-mention of his name in the F.I.R. it was doubtful.

¶11

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 confessional statement of co-accused persons, the CCTV footage in which no role of firing is seen against the appellant and the period he is in jail, 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.

¶12

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

Let the appellant- Kaushinder , involved in the aforesaid Case Crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

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

¶16

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶17

witness.

¶18

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

¶19

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

The appellant 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaushinder v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushinder 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

Similar cases

Munne Lal and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rijha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Kalyan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ziya Firdaus vs State of U.P. and Another