Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chandra vs State Of Up Thru Its Secratary Home ... on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172001
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33069 of 2023
Applicant :- Suresh Chandra
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru Its Secratary Home Up Govt
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Kashyap,V.P. Singh Kashyap
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar Kashyap, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Suresh Chandra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2022 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Ganjdundwara, District-Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 06.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32480 of 2022 (Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, order dated 06.09.2022 is reproduced herein under:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 96 of 2022, under section 302 I.P.C, P.S. Ganjdundwara, district-Kasganj, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
The report of the incident was lodged by the informant about the incident, which has taken place in the night of 10/11.5.2022, in which the father of the informant Kalicharan was done to death by some unknown persons in the fields. In the morning when the informant went to the fields then he came to know that his father was done to death.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time during investigation when a dog of dog squad pointed towards the applicant. He next submits that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and there is no motive as to why he would kill his own father. He is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. The recovery of axe which has been shown from the applicant is totally fake and false and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. He lastly submits that the applicant, who has no reported criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 14.5.2022 is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased was murdered in the night and the dog of dog squad has raised suspicion towards applicant in the crowd and later on weapon of assault was also recovered from the applicant. The applicant was having motive to kill the deceased because the applicant was having inimical relations with the deceased over a dispute of property.
After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage of trial.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 6.9.2022 "
5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. During course of investigation, 11 prosecution witnesses of fact have been nominated in the charge sheet. However, upto this stage. six prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined. Complicity of applicant as per statement of witnesses examined upto this stage is not established in the crime in question. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to her credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 14.05.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 1 years and three months of incarceration. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that on the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses of fact who have been examined upto this stage, the innocence of applicant cannot be inferred. It is an admitted fact that all the prosecution witnesses have not been examined. It is thus contended by the learned A.G.A. that the ground urged in support of this repeat applicant for bail is wholly misconceived. Therefore, present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected.
7.When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that there are as many as 11 prosecution witnesses of fact nominated in the charge-sheet, upto this stage, only six prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined, simply on the basis of the statements of witnesses so examined who have not supported the prosecution story cannot be a ground to infer innocence of applicant. As a result, this Court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
9. The present repeat application for bail thus fails and is liable to be rejected.
10. It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023
YK
