Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26879

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6671 of 2024

Applicant :- Jai Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surya Prakash Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as Sri Anurag Varma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0024 of 2024, under Sections 363, 302 and 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Tarun, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on on 23.01.2024 stating that the informant's son aged about 8 years had gone out of his home at about 7 p.m. on 23.01.2024 and he went missing. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 CrPC, he expressed a suspicion that Jai Prakash had kidnapped his son.

¶9

The dead body of the son of the informant/ victim was recovered from a pit in a jungle. The post-mortem examination report mentions incised wounds on his abdomen, his large and small intestines were exposed and cause of death has been opined to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of the antemortem injuries. In the statement of the informant recorded on 21.08.2024, he stated that there is an old property dispute between his family and the applicant and the applicant had

¶10

threatened to settle the score. Some persons had seen the applicant along with another person namely Mehandi Hasan son of Peer Mohammad taking the informant's son on his motorcycle and some persons had told the informant that both the aforesaid persons had killed his son and had hidden the dead body of the deceased somewhere.

¶11

The police arrested the applicant on 29.01.2024 and a knife was recovered from an open place on his pointing out. In his custodial statement, the applicant stated that he along with Mehandi Hasan had killed the victim.

¶12

On 30.01.2024, the informant gave an application to the police stating that two persons namely Ashok and Arvind had seen Jai Prakash and Mehandi Hasan taking away the informant's son. Subsequently, on 06.02.2024, the informant gave another application to the police stating that the applicant and Ravi Bharti had taken away and killed his son. He stated that Jai Prakash had wrongly implicated Mehandi Hasan. Several persons had seen the applicant, Ravi Bharti, Ashok and Arvind had mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan under some confusion. After this, the investigating officer recorded the statement of Arvind on the same date wherein he stated that he had seen the applicant and Ravi Bharti taking away a boy aged about 8 years on their motor-cycle. After the dead body of the boy was found in the jungle, he believed that the applicant and Ravi Bhatt had killed the boy. He further stated that whatever he had seen, he told to the informant. After this, the investigating officer recorded additional statement of the applicant on 15.03.2024 wherein he stated that Ravi Bhatt was involved with him in commission of the offence.

¶13

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the materials collected during investigation and a

¶14

copy of the charge-sheet submitted on 17.04.2024.

¶15

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant. The applicant's involvement in another criminal case has been disclosed in para-23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application wherein he has been ordered to be released on bail.

¶16

The learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed this application and he has submitted that under the orders of the Magistrate concerned, the investigating officer had gone to the jail to take the samples of hair and blood of the applicant for D.N.A. examination but the applicant declined to give the samples. This act of the applicant gives rise to adverse inference against the applicant.

¶17

Co-accused- Ravi Bharti @ Pintu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of an order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6043 of 2024.

¶18

Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons; subsequently, the informant stated that on 28.01.2024, his son had been killed by the applicant due to an old property dispute and that some person had seen the applicant and Mehandi Hasan taking away the informant's son on a motor-cycle; upon this statement, the applicant was arrested and a knife was recovered on his pointing out from an open place and in his custodial statement, he stated that he had killed the informant's son along with Mehandi Hasan; subsequently, on 30.11.2024, the informant himself stated that two persons namely Ashok and Arvind had seen Jai Prakash along with Mehandi Hasan taking away his son; it was for the first time on 06.02.2024 that the informant

¶19

stated that Mehandi Hasan was not involved in commission of the killing of his son and it was Ravi Bharti who committed the offence along with Jai Prakash and he has stated that Jai Prakash had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan and witnesses Ashok and Arvind had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan under some confusion and therefore Ravi Bharti has been implicated in the present case; Ashok and Arvind both have stated that they had seen the applicant and Ravi Bharti taking away a boy and they have not stated that they had identified the boy; both the aforesaid persons have stated that after coming to know about the dead body of the boy having been recovered, they came to know that the boy had been killed by the applicant and Ravi Bharti yet this application was not filed promptly and initially the informant, Ashok and Arvind stated that Mehandi Hasan was involved in commission of the offence with the applicant; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.01.2024, whereas a co-accused has been granted bail and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶20

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Jai Prakash be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶23

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶24

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by

¶25

the trial court.

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 MVS/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Civil Sectt. 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

Vivek Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Virendra Singh Yadav @ Veerey Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suhail Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sundar Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another