Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2025BAIL/6772/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granted bail to applicant Pradeep Kumar charged under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act for the alleged murder of the informant's husband. The court noted the brother's delayed testimony and the co-accused's prior bail as key factors.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Pradeep Kumar released on bail on personal bond and two sureties ordered to not tamper with witnesses and appear on all dates.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19769

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6772 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar,Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Smriti, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Ashish Tripathi, the learned counsel for the informant and and perused the records.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1028/2023, under Section 302 IPC and 3/25/7 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Unnao.

¶9

4.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 17.12.2023 against the applicant, his mother Neelam, her brother Sunil and some unnamed persons, stating that the co-accused Neelam is the first wife of the informant's husband and she lives with the applicant at Ram Nagar. Thereafter the informant's husband entered into a second marriage with her in the year 2010 and her husband was living with her. He was paying maintenance to the first wife coaccused Neelam. The applicant had called the informant's husband at about 07:00 p.m. on 16.12.2023 and he did not come back. The informant got information in the morning that the dead body of her husband was lying upon a heap of garbage in front of the applicant's house. Upon reaching there, she found the applicant's house locked. She stated that she believed that the applicant and his mother had killed the applicant's father. The post mortem examination report mentions four gun shot

¶10

entry wounds and three exit wounds and the cause of death has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.

¶11

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the FIR version. The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of one Sant Ram, brother of the informant Jamuna that he had accompanied the deceased when he had gone to the house of the applicant. The deceased had gone inside the house while he was standing at the door of the house. The applicant reached there afterwards and he had fired a shot in the air outside the house and thereafter he entered the house. Upon exhortation of his mother, the applicant had fired four shots towards his father. Upon seeing this, this witness had ran away and in the morning he gave information of the incident to the informant Jamuna Devi.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶13

That State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge sheet dated 22.02.2024.The informant has also filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident is said to have been witnessed by the informant's brother and he claims to have informed about the incident to the informant in the morning yet in the FIR lodged at 10:46 hours on 17.12.2023, the informant has merely expressed a suspicion that the deceased had been killed by the applicant and his mother and even in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she did not make any mention of the incident having been witnessed by her brother; that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 19.12.2023 whereas his mother co-accused Neelam Yadav has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4021 of 2024, 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.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar be released on bail in the aforementioned 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:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Pradeep/-

¶20

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

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Mohd. Arif @ Anna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Kanchan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Adil Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Manmohan Singh @ Devansh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Umesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home