Allowed

Ankit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2025BAIL/8031/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 302 IPC for a murder where the FIR was lodged on suspicion against three persons, no one witnessed the incident, and prosecution witness statements revealed nothing significant. The court noted the single bullet injury and applicant's clean record and allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions: not tamper with evidence, not pressurize witnesses, appear on every trial date.

Ankit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20154

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8031 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Rahul Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhupendra Veer Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Bhupendra Veer Singh, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

¶8

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copies of statements of three prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial court. Informant PW1 has stated that upon getting information of the death of his brother, the informant reached on the spot where he found his brother in a blood soaked condition and all three named accused persons were present there and all of them were stunned. He has stated that he had witnessed the inquest proceedings and during inquest proceeding, he had not expressed any suspicion against any accused person. He stated that he has not witnessed the incident. This witness stated that he had never seen his brother consuming liquor or gambling. PW2 is mother of the deceased and she has also not witnessed the incident and nothing significant has come in her statement as she stated that parda pratha is followed in her family. She stated that the deceased has not given any information to her on any occasion which may be adverse to any of the accused persons. PW3 Vikrant

¶9

Srivastava is another brother of the deceased and nothing significant has come in his statement also.

¶10

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 602/2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶11

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 01.09.2023 implicating three persons on the basis of suspicion, including the applicant, stating that all the accused persons live in the house of Vikas Kishore. Some altercation must have taken place during night due to which some persons got the rear door of the house open and killed the informant's brother Vikas Yadav by shooting him. Ajay Rawat is one of the witnesses to the inquest proceedings. All the persons present during inquest proceedings stated that the deceased had died due to gun shot injury. The post mortem examnation report mentions a single fire arm entry wound at the fore head of the deceased. The cause of death has been opined to be ante mortem head injury.

¶12

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.p.C., he stated that his brother (deceased) used to live with Vikas Kishore, who is son of a Cabinet Minister. Vikas Kishore treated the deceased as very close to him. For this reason, the accued persons, who also used to live with him, started feeling jealous. In the night of the incident, they made the deceased consume liquor in excessive quantity and they gambled. Some dispute took place between them and all the three persons killed the deceased with the licensed pistol of Vikas Kishore. The police had suspicion upon one Saurabh Rawat also and interrogated him. His statement has been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he stated that nobody had consumed liquor on the night of the incident. In the custodial statement of the applicant, he stated that he had

¶13

consumed liquor and he does not know as to when he picked up the pistol and when a shot was fired from his hand.

¶14

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.

¶15

On the contrary, the deceased Vinay Srivastava was involved in Case No. 208/2020 in the Court of ACJM (AP), Lucknow under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC in which he had been granted bail and the applicant had stood sureties for his release.

¶16

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation, which has already been brought on record. A charge sheet has been submitted on 26.11.2023.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR has been lodged against three persons on the basis of suspicion only; the incident has not been witnessed by any person; although the FIR alleges commission of offence by three persons, the deceased had received a single bullet injury; the witnesses have stated that the deceased was made to consume excessive quantity of alcohol which allegation is not supported by the findings of the post mortem examination report and that the applicant is a young man aged 27 years having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.09.2023 whereas investigation already stands concluded on 26.11.2023 whereas three witnesses of facts have already been examined by the trial court and no such fact has come to light in their statements as may warrant rejection of the bail application, 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.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant - Ankit Verma 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Pradeep/-

¶25

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

Ankit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

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

Ali Raza @ Bhuttu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ankit Rana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shamim @ Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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