Dismissed¶43

Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025BAIL/3774/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Repeat/second bail application rejected — Allahabad High Court, Rajeev Misra, J., 16.04.2025; Section 302 IPC murder, Case Crime No. 17 of 2023, PS Rampur Barkoniya, Sonbhadra; ST No. 516 of 2023; first bail rejected 05.12.2023; hostile witnesses P.W.-2 and P.W.-7; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Babri Devi, Basantiya Devi, Kamlesh @ Vittu; weapon (Danda) recovery on applicant's pointing; FSL report 04.11.2023 human blood; custody since 03.04.2023 over two years; charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; no new, good or sufficient ground; Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 4 SCC 96 cited on delayed witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found no new, good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail; the repeat bail application therefore fails. ¶42

Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the repeat bail application of applicant Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar, a named and charge-sheeted accused facing Sessions Trial No. 516 of 2023 under Section 302 IPC, should be granted, particularly in view of two implicating witnesses (P.W.-2 Babri Devi and P.W.-7 Basantiya Devi) having been declared hostile. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The declaration of P.W.-2 (Babri Devi) and P.W.-7 (Basantiya Devi) as hostile did not by itself warrant bail, since the third witness who had implicated the applicant, Kamlesh @ Vittu, had not yet deposed before the court below; this objection formed part of the record-borne grounds that stood undisputed.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found no new, good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail; the repeat bail application therefore fails.

¶42

Key takeaways

The objections raised by the learned A.G.A. against bail were held to be borne out from the record and could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for the applicant with reference to the record at this stage.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra, J.; order dated 16.04.2025) rejected a repeat bail application by Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3774 of 2025) seeking enlargement pending Sessions Trial No. 516 of 2023 (State Vs. Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar) under Section 302 IPC, Case Crime No. 17 of 2023, PS Rampur Barkoniya, District Sonbhadra. His first bail application had been rejected by detailed order dated 05.12.2023. Counsel urged that, of the three witnesses who implicated the applicant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Babri Devi, Basantiya Devi and Kamlesh @ Vittu), two — P.W.-2 Babri Devi and P.W.-7 Basantiya Devi — had been declared hostile; that the applicant had clean antecedents except the present case; that he was in custody since 03.04.2023 (over two years); and that the Section 173(2) charge-sheet had crystallised the prosecution evidence. The A.G.A. countered that Kamlesh @ Vittu had not yet deposed, and that the weapon of assault (Danda) recovered on the applicant's pointing bore human blood as per F.S.L. report dated 04.11.2023. Finding these objections borne out from the record and undislodged, the Court held there was no new, good or sufficient ground for bail and rejected the application without commenting on the merits. (In the reproduced first order, counsel had cited Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96 on delay in recording statements.)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55660

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3774 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Saurabh Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite paty-1.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2023 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Rampur Barkoniya, District-Sonbhadra during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 516 of 2023 (State Vs. Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar) under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Rampur Barkoniya, District-Sonbhadra now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (C.A.W.) Court, Sonbhadra.

¶10

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 05.12.20233 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38350 of 2023 (Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar Vs. State of U.P. . For ready reference, the order dated 05.12.2023 is reproduced herein-under:

¶11

"1. Heard Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, the learned counsel for applicant and

¶12

the learned A.G.A. for State

¶13

2. Perused the record.

¶14

3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Ram Kumar Paswan@ Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2023 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Rampur Barkoniya, DistrictSonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

¶15

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 31.03.2023 a delayed F.I.R. dated 02.04.2023, was lodged by first informant-Om Prakash Paswan (son of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.246 of 2022 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Rampur Barkoniya, District-Sonbhadra. In the aforesaid F. I.R., applicant-Ram Kumar Paswan@ Kumar has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶16

5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that on 31.03.2023, father of first informant namely Vishwnath was put to death by some unknown person.

¶17

6. It is apposite to mention here that after the aforesaid occurrence, information regarding the same was given at the concerned police station. On the basis of above information, inquest and post-mortem proceedings were conducted.

¶18

7. The inquest (panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 01.04.2023. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was categorised as homicidal and cause of death of deceased was said to be injury sustained by the deceased. Subsequent to above, the post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, the cause of death of deceased was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The Autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:

¶19

i. I/W (incised wound), chopped 13 cm. x 4 cm. x 5 cm. on the front of neck below chin anxiety, trachea cut and exposed open, margin sharp.

¶20

ii. I/W 4 cm. x 1cm x 1cm. just above Rte. eye brow.

¶21

iii. I/W 2cm x 2 cm on Rt. corner of mouth involving upper and lower lip cut through and through.

¶22

iv. I/W 3 cm x 2cm x skin deep on the out aspect of neck 4cm below injury no.1.

¶23

v. Cartesian area of 26 cm. x 12 cm. on the part of lower neck just below injury no.1.

¶24

vi. Cartesian 11cm. x 7 cm. on Rt. shoulder top.

¶25

8. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses namely Babri Devi, Basantiya Devi, Kamlesh @ Vittu, Atal Kumar and Shyana Devi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The complicity of present applicant surfaced in the statement of three witnesses namely Babri Devi, Basantiya Devi, Kamlesh @ Vittu. Accordingly, applicant was arrested on 03.04.2023. On his pointing, the weapon of assault i.e. Danda was recovered, which was having blood stain. According the weapon of assault was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.

¶26

9. The learned A.G.A. submits that as per F.S.L. report dated 04.11.2023, human blood was found on the same.

¶27

10. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of applicant is fully established in the crime in question. He therefore opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 07.05.2023, whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶28

11. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is alleged to have occurred on 31.03.2023 whereas the statement of witnesses namely Babri Devi, Basantiya Devi, Kamlesh @ Vittu was recorded with delay. Referring to the judgement of Apex Court in the Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96, the learned counsel for applicant submits that since the statements of three witnesses was recorded with much delay therefore they becpme suspicious and hence unworthy of reliance.

¶29

12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheet accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Complicity of applicant in the crime in question is fully established as per the statement of three witnesses namely Babri Devi, Basantiya Devi, Kamlesh @ Vittu examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. It is further contended that on the pointing of applicant, the weapon of assault was recovered and was having blood stains As per FSL report, human blood was found on the recovered weapon of assault. On the basis of above and the incriminating circumstance that has emerged against applicant, during course of investigation, applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.

¶30

13. When confronted with above, the learned learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶31

14. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that the learned counsel for applicant could not dislodge the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions

¶32

urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of the present application for bail, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶33

15. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶34

16. It is, accordingly, rejected.

¶35

Order Date :- 5.12.2023. "

¶36

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below by way of aforementioned Sessions Trial yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant contends that three of the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. namely Babri Devi, Basantiya Devi, Kamlesh @ Vittu clearly implicated the applicant in the crime in question.Two of the witnesses namely Babri Devi and Basantiya Devi have deposed before court below as P.W.-2 and P.W.-7. However, they have been declared hostile. He therefore submits that no substantial evidence now exists to implicate the present applicant in the crime in question. As such, present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

¶37

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 03.04.2023. As such, he has undergone more than two years of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, it is

¶38

thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶39

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does deserve any indulgence by this Court. According to the learned A.G.A. one of the witnesses, who had also implicated the present applicant in the crime in question namely Kamlesh @ Vittu has not yet deposed before court below. Therefore, there is no such material on record on the basis of which, the innocence of applicant can be ifspo facto concluded. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that the weapon of assault used in the commission of crime in question was recovered on the pointing of applicant. As per FSL report, human blood was found on the same. The said adverse circumstances remains undislodged by the learned counsel for applicant upto this stage. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that since no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged on record so as to enlarge the applicant on bail, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present repeat application for bail.

¶40

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat

¶42

application for bail as noted herein above are not only borne out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶43

As a result, present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶44

It is accordingly rejected .

¶45

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 YK

¶46

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

Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar Paswan Alias Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Habiburrahman Alias Laddu vs State of U.P. and Another

Yatendra Pratap Alias Babblu vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Haneef and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Informant vs State of Up and 2 Others

Golu Sahani vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Narendra Alias Kaley and Another vs State of U.P. and Another