High Court

Applicant :- Nirankar Sharma @ Rinku Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Smt. Nalini Prakash Jain,Randhir Singh,Sandeep Kumar(Trivedi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Randhir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned AGA for the State. The present applicant is in jail since 10.05.2024 in case crime no. 0106 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Hasanganj District Unnao. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which was lodged on 09.05.2024 for the alleged incident dated 06.05.2024 without explaining the delay. The informant of the FIR is the mother of the deceased and the deceased is a married lady having a daughter of five years. As per the allegation of the First Information Report one Jyoti @ Babli Maurya, killed her daughter and her granddaughter with the help of her assistant. Learned counsel has stated that no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicants in the FIR and nothing incriminating material or evidence has been found against the present applicant. As a matter of fact, there is no eye witness account in the present case. The present applicant is an employee of the main accused Jyoti @ Babli Maurya. Learned counsel has stated that after the arrest of main accused, Smt. Jyoti @ Babli her confessional statement was recorded by the Police within the custody where she has stated that on the date of incident along with one of her employee, namely Milind @ Kallu, who had assisted her to kill the deceased Roshni and the present applicant was only sitting in the car inasmuch as the incident took place in an alleged car. On the basis of the confession statement of main accused Jyoti @ Babli, the present applicant was arrested and same confession statement of the applicant has been recorded. Though the aforesaid confessional statement is extra judicial confession which has got no evidentiary value, but if such confessional statement is taken on its face value, even there is no allegation against the present applicant to kill the deceased person in any manner whatsoever inasmuch as he was only sitting in the car. However, the learned counsel has stated that the present applicant is disputing the aforesaid fact that he was present in the car, and he has only been implicated for the reason that he is employee of the main accused and her husband. Attention has been drawn towards the supplementary affidavit showing the statement of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, who have not stated anything against the present applicant. PW2 is the informant/complainant, wherein, has levelled allegation against her son-in-law, saying that his behaviour with the daughter was so rough and she was fed up with the bad habit of drinking liquor. After taking liquor, he used to beat her daughter. Complainant had also stated that her deceased daughter was having cordial relation with one Monu, and for that reason, the main accuse Jyoti used to create some dispute quite often. In her statement, she had stated that her daughter and granddaughter has been killed by Jyoti @ Babli and her employee. The aforesaid murder took place only for the reason that the main accuse Jyoti was having suspicion that such Milind @ Monu is having illicit revision with her daughter, Roshni while concluding her statement, she had stated that the present applicant along with other employees had assisted Jyoti to kill her daughter and granddaughter. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind. Trial is going on wherein almost all fact witnesses have been examined and he is properly cooperating in the trial proceeding. He further under undertake that he shall cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if granted. Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2024; in the statement of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, have not stated anything against the present applicant; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Nirankar Sharma @ Rinku Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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 applicants fail 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. (iv) 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. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Anurag

Applicant :- Nirankar Sharma @ Rinku Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Smt. Nalini Prakash Jain,Randhir Singh,Sandeep Kumar(Trivedi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Randhir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned AGA for the State. The present applicant is in jail since 10.05.2024 in case crime no. 0106 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Hasanganj District Unnao. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which was lodged on 09.05.2024 for the alleged incident dated 06.05.2024 without explaining the delay. The informant of the FIR is the mother of the deceased and the deceased is a married lady having a daughter of five years. As per the allegation of the First Information Report one Jyoti @ Babli Maurya, killed her daughter and her granddaughter with the help of her assistant. Learned counsel has stated that no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicants in the FIR and nothing incriminating material or evidence has been found against the present applicant. As a matter of fact, there is no eye witness account in the present case. The present applicant is an employee of the main accused Jyoti @ Babli Maurya. Learned counsel has stated that after the arrest of main accused, Smt. Jyoti @ Babli her confessional statement was recorded by the Police within the custody where she has stated that on the date of incident along with one of her employee, namely Milind @ Kallu, who had assisted her to kill the deceased Roshni and the present applicant was only sitting in the car inasmuch as the incident took place in an alleged car. On the basis of the confession statement of main accused Jyoti @ Babli, the present applicant was arrested and same confession statement of the applicant has been recorded. Though the aforesaid confessional statement is extra judicial confession which has got no evidentiary value, but if such confessional statement is taken on its face value, even there is no allegation against the present applicant to kill the deceased person in any manner whatsoever inasmuch as he was only sitting in the car. However, the learned counsel has stated that the present applicant is disputing the aforesaid fact that he was present in the car, and he has only been implicated for the reason that he is employee of the main accused and her husband. Attention has been drawn towards the supplementary affidavit showing the statement of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, who have not stated anything against the present applicant. PW2 is the informant/complainant, wherein, has levelled allegation against her son-in-law, saying that his behaviour with the daughter was so rough and she was fed up with the bad habit of drinking liquor. After taking liquor, he used to beat her daughter. Complainant had also stated that her deceased daughter was having cordial relation with one Monu, and for that reason, the main accuse Jyoti used to create some dispute quite often. In her statement, she had stated that her daughter and granddaughter has been killed by Jyoti @ Babli and her employee. The aforesaid murder took place only for the reason that the main accuse Jyoti was having suspicion that such Milind @ Monu is having illicit revision with her daughter, Roshni while concluding her statement, she had stated that the present applicant along with other employees had assisted Jyoti to kill her daughter and granddaughter. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind. Trial is going on wherein almost all fact witnesses have been examined and he is properly cooperating in the trial proceeding. He further under undertake that he shall cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if granted. Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2024; in the statement of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, have not stated anything against the present applicant; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Nirankar Sharma @ Rinku Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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 applicants fail 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. (iv) 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. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Anurag