Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165223
Reserved On:- 10.08.2023
Delivered On:- 17.08.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34089 of 2023
Applicant :- Kuldeep
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjit Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ranjit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
2. There is allegation in the FIR that on 08.12.2023 barat of Rahul son of Dalchand had reached the bride's place at 09:00 p.m in the night. The applicant and co-accused, Sanjay, Rakesh, Deepak and Arvind, started abusing the baraties for coming late. The informant tried to pacify them. Thereafter the applicant and co-accused armed with pistol, knife, rifle and lathi-danda at about 2:00 p.m in the night, caused the alleged incident.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. None of the witness have assigned any specific role to him. He is uncle of the bride and co-accused, Sanjay, was father of the bride who has been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21292 of 2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is an army man and posted at Pathankot. He come to attend marriage ceremony of daughter of his cousin and was falsely implicated in this case alongwith other co-accused persons. He has submitted that he is a disciplined man and only to spoil his life and career, he has been falsely implicated in this case. None of the injuries suffered by the deceased or injured was caused by any fire arm. The deceased died on account of heart failure and the injuries on the person of the two injured cannot be attributed solely to the applicant.
5. Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant. He has submitted that the applicant is an army man and therefore he was the leader of the entire gang which indulged in the alleged incident and violence during the marriage ceremony. He has submitted that the bail application of the applicant was rightly rejected by the court below. The deceased suffered six post-mortem injuries as a result of which he suffered cardiac failure.
6. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant.
7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there were general allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR. One of the co-accused, Sanjay, has already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21292 of 2023. The applicant is serving as military man and keeping in view the present trend in the villages his false implication cannot be ruled out. Dispute took place all of sudden during dinner in a marriage ceremony and there does not seems to be any prior intention to cause death of anyone.
8. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant, Kuldeep, involved in Case Crime No. 42 of 2023, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Sureer, District- Mathura, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against his under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant 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.
10. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.
13. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days.
Order Date :- 17.08.2023
Rohit
