Mayank Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10227

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5389 of 2024

Applicant :- Mayank Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rudra Pratap Singh,Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Kant

¶5

&

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5608 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Singh,Rudra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Kant

¶8

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the informant.

¶10

The aforesaid applicant are in jail since 10.04.2020 in case crime no. 141 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506, 427 of IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Phardhan, District Kheri.

¶11

Both the aforesaid bail applications are second bail application as the first bail applications have been rejected by this Court by a common order dated 12.02.2024, which reads as under:-

¶12

"1. Both the bail applications arise out of the same case crime number and, as such, same are being disposed off by means of this common order.

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uma Kant, the counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶14

3. The accused-applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.141 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Pardhan, District Kheri.

¶15

4. . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 08.04.2020 at about 8:00 am one Tejnath had called the brother of the informant, when the brother of the informant was sitting at a shop where the food-grains were being distributed, the accused persons named in the FIR along with two unknown persons armed with firearm and sharp edged weapons came and one Gappu @ Prakhar Shukla caused the injuries on the brother of the informant through his unauthorized weapon as a result whereof, he fell on the spot and subsequently the accused took over the revolver of the brother of the informant who died and when the son of the deceased Hargovind Shukla came to save him, he was attacked with sharp edged weapons and he also died because of the injuries inflicted upon him. In the light of the said, the postmortem was conducted on the two persons who had died. The postmortem of Ramesh Shukla indicates multiple incised wounds and three firearm wounds on the chest and abdominal cavity whereas ante-mortem injuries inflicted on the other deceased Hargoind Shukla indicates seven incised wounds and that was also the cause of death of both the said persons.

¶16

5. In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that a charge-sheet was filed wherein the prosecution has relied upon the statement of as many as seventeen witnesses to support the prosecution story. He argues that during the trial the informant as well as the eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and in fact one more person Anupam Bajpai has also not supported the prosecution story. In the light of the said, it is argued that the applicants who have no criminal history and are in custody since 10.04.2020 should be enlarged on bail.

¶17

6. Similar arguments are raised in the case of the co-accused.

¶18

7. On the last date, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 16.01.2024, a report has been furnished by the trial court to the effect that three prosecution witnesses have already been examined and steps are being taken for conclusion of the trial after recording of the statement of the other witnesses.

¶19

8. Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the informant strongly oppose the bail applications by arguing that gruesome double murder was committed in the broad daylight by the applicants who were specifically named in the FIR. It is further argued that the weapon used for commission of the offence was recovered and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail applications deserves to be rejected. He further argues that there was an enmity in between the applicants as well as the family of the deceased, which is revealed in the statements recorded during the trial.

¶20

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, it is clear that the statement of three fact witnesses and one other witness as well as the statement of informant have already been recorded who have not supported the prosecution story, however, the statement of other two eye witnesses and the other fact witnesses have not yet been recorded so far in terms of the report dated 01.02.2024.

¶21

10. Considering the gruesome murder in which, two persons were done to death and killed in a board daylight, which has the effect of keeping the confidence of the public and the daredevilry of the applicants is writ large in the FIR coupled with the manner in which the offence was committed

¶22

and the recovery was effected at the instance of the applicants, I do not see any reason to enlarge the applicants on bail.

¶23

11. Both the bail applications are accordingly rejected . "

¶24

While rejecting the first bail application of the aforesaid accused persons, this Court in paragraph 9 has noted the fact that three fact witnesses and one other witness as well as informant have been examined, who have not supported the prosecution story, but the statement of other two eye witnesses and one witness are to be recorded.

¶25

Sri S.K. Singh learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after rejection of the first bail application, the statement of two witnesses and other witnesses have been recorded. It is further submitted that presently, out of total seventeen prosecution witnesses, six prosecution witnesses have been examined, five prosecution witnesses have been discharged. The evidence of the investigating officer is being recorded and thereafter only five formal witnesses are to be examined.

¶26

Sri S.K. Singh has further submitted that though this is a case of double murder, but considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicants, i.e., four years and ten months and the fact that all fact and relevant witnesses have been examined, the present applicants may be enlarged on bail, keeping in view that the trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded inasmuch as five formal prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, thereafter, the required exercise under Section 313 CrPC would be undertaken. Thereafter, the defence witnesses may likely to be examined and after examination of all the witnesses, the trial maybe listed for final arguments.

¶27

Sri S.K. Singh has stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held time and again that if the accused persons are incarcerated in jail for substantially long period and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial soon, such accused persons may be enlarged on bail protecting their fundamental right, i.e, right to speedy trial. Besides, the Apex Court has held in couple of cases that if all fact and relevant witnesses have been examined and accused applicants is/are in jail for substantially long period, their bail application may be considered.

¶28

Sri S.K. Singh has vehemently submitted that both the applicants are having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever and they undertake that if they are enlarged on bail, they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not miss use liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail application.

¶29

Per contra, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the informant have submitted that this is a case of double murder and as per material and evidence available, the main role has been attributed to these aforesaid accused persons. So far as the pace of trial is concerned, learned counsels have stated that that aspect is not within their control, however, the prosecution side is also cooperating in the investigation properly.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

The Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 wherein it has been held as under :-

¶32

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶33

In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020) the Apex Court has held as under :

¶34

"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶35

Besides, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505 , wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered.

¶36

In the present case, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicants, i.e., four years and ten months and the fact that all fact and relevant witnesses have been examined,

¶37

keeping in view that the trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded inasmuch as five formal prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, thereafter, the required exercise under Section 313 CrPC would be undertaken. Hence, all the aforesaid reasons may be considered as fresh grounds to allow second bail application in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) , Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) . So, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶38

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, the present bail applications are allowed .

¶39

Let the applicants Mayank Shukla and Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶40

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶41

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶43

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶44

(v) The applicants shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶45

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Anurag

¶46

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mayank Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Gulshan vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dev Mani Mishra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Baburam Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Afsari Khatoon Alias Gudia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Babban Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko