Allowed¶14

Kajal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2025BAIL/702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted on parity, Lucknow Bench, order dated 24.1.2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:4698); applicant Kajal Singh; Case Crime No. 430 of 2018; Section 302/201 IPC; Police Station Maandhata, District Pratapgarh; custody since 6.1.2019; no criminal history; co-accused Suresh Singh bailed 09.06.2021 in criminal misc. bail application No. 12418/2019; parity; no opinion on merits; personal bond and two sureties; bail conditions; Section 229-A IPC; Section 82 Cr.P.C.; Section 174-A IPC; FIR delay of two days; circumstantial evidence; counsel Jaikaran; State represented by G.A.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Kajal Singh on the ground of parity; to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the six conditions imposed in the interest of justice. ¶14

Kajal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Kajal Singh, accused in Case Crime No. 430 of 2018 under Section 302/201 IPC (Police Station Maandhata, District Pratapgarh), should be enlarged on bail, having regard to his prolonged custody, absence of criminal history, and parity with co-accused Suresh Singh who was similarly placed and already bailed.

¶12

Court's answer

The Court, considering that the applicant is in jail since 6.1.2019, has no criminal history, and co-accused Suresh Singh assigned a similar role has been enlarged on bail, found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail expressly on the ground of parity, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Release is directed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, presence before the trial court on each date fixed (default actionable under Section 229-A IPC), and initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC upon failure to appear after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted on parity. Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:4698; order dated 24.1.2025) enlarged applicant Kajal Singh, accused in Case Crime No. 430 of 2018 under Section 302/201 IPC (Police Station Maandhata, District Pratapgarh), expressly 'on the ground of parity', while stating he was 'without expressing any opinion on merits of the case'. Grounds relied on: custody since 6.1.2019, absence of criminal history, and enlargement of co-accused Suresh Singh, assigned a similar role, by order dated 09.06.2021 in criminal misc. bail application No. 12418/2019 (relied upon). Counsel's evidentiary submissions (confessional statement in police custody, no last-seen evidence, no recovery, circumstantial nature, FIR delay of two days) were not disputed by the State but were not converted into findings. Release ordered on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including trial-court consequences under Section 229-A IPC for absence and Section 174-A IPC following proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Bond quantum not specified in rupees.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4698

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 702 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Kajal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Apart from confessional statement of the applicant in police custody there is no other evidence against the applicant. Even there is no last scene evidence. The applicant has been made accused only due to suspicion. No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant. It is the matter of circumstantial evidence. No one has scene the incident. First Information Report has been lodged after delay of two days without any explanation. The applicant has not been arrested on the spot. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.1.2019.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the coaccused Suresh Singh who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.06.2021 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 12418/2019. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶10

It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts that the applicant is in jail since 6.1.2019 and has no criminal history, so also the fact that co-accused Suresh Singh who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail

¶13

on the ground of parity.

¶14

Let the applicant, Kajal Singh involved in Case Crime No. 430 of 2018 under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Maandhata, District Pratapgarh be released on bail on his 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:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 R.C.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kajal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kajal Singh 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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Sageer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Kajal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ankit and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another