High Court

Applicant :- Vinay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.195 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S.-Para, District - Lucknow. As per the prosecution story, the informant was working as Staff Nurse in Community Health Center, Trivediganj and when she was on her duty on 14.4.2024, at about 11.30 pm, she was informed by her husband and other co-accused, namely, Sarita Dubey, who was tenant in her house that her mother is no more and she is of the firm belief that her mother has been murdered by Dev and Jay as Jay had threatened her mother several times. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that incident took place on 14.4.2024 at about 23.30 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.4.2025 at about 17.06. Therefore, there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. but no plausible explanation thereof has been furnished. It is the informant who, after receiving the information that her mother was murdered; lodged the F.I.R. but the same was lodged after two days which clearly indicates that F.I.R. has been lodged after thoughts. The nature of injuries indicates that those are not caused by some fatal weapon as had there been any intention of committing murder of the deceased, certainly fatal weapon would have been used. He next added that a false recovery has been made on the pointing out of the applicant, i.e., a 'cane' but the same is not in consonance with the provision as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as the settled proposition of law as there is no disclosure report and on the pointing out of the present applicant, the said 'cane' is shown to be recovered and thus, the same cannot be used as an admissible evidence before the trial court. Adding his arguments, he submits that the present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and Jay and Dev have been named. He next added that one of the co-accused Sarita Dubey has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6590 of 2024, vide order dated 27.8.2024. Further submission is that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained in para 12 of the rejoinder affidavit. The instant case is of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness of the incident and, as such, there is lesser chance of conviction of the applicant. He next added that presumption of innocence goes in favour of the applicant. He next submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.4.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the weapon has been recovered on the pointing out of the present applicant and the motive is clear and, thus, circumstances have been channelized, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that it is not a case of direct evidence and prima facie story has not been channelized by the prosecution; present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. whereas Jay and Dev have been named; as per the C.D.R., location of the present application was found in Ashiyana that is away from the place of occurrence on the date of incident. Further there is a case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 12 of the rejoinder affidavit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.4.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant Vinay Singh involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ram Murti

Applicant :- Vinay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.195 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S.-Para, District - Lucknow. As per the prosecution story, the informant was working as Staff Nurse in Community Health Center, Trivediganj and when she was on her duty on 14.4.2024, at about 11.30 pm, she was informed by her husband and other co-accused, namely, Sarita Dubey, who was tenant in her house that her mother is no more and she is of the firm belief that her mother has been murdered by Dev and Jay as Jay had threatened her mother several times. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that incident took place on 14.4.2024 at about 23.30 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.4.2025 at about 17.06. Therefore, there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. but no plausible explanation thereof has been furnished. It is the informant who, after receiving the information that her mother was murdered; lodged the F.I.R. but the same was lodged after two days which clearly indicates that F.I.R. has been lodged after thoughts. The nature of injuries indicates that those are not caused by some fatal weapon as had there been any intention of committing murder of the deceased, certainly fatal weapon would have been used. He next added that a false recovery has been made on the pointing out of the applicant, i.e., a 'cane' but the same is not in consonance with the provision as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as the settled proposition of law as there is no disclosure report and on the pointing out of the present applicant, the said 'cane' is shown to be recovered and thus, the same cannot be used as an admissible evidence before the trial court. Adding his arguments, he submits that the present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and Jay and Dev have been named. He next added that one of the co-accused Sarita Dubey has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6590 of 2024, vide order dated 27.8.2024. Further submission is that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained in para 12 of the rejoinder affidavit. The instant case is of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness of the incident and, as such, there is lesser chance of conviction of the applicant. He next added that presumption of innocence goes in favour of the applicant. He next submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.4.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the weapon has been recovered on the pointing out of the present applicant and the motive is clear and, thus, circumstances have been channelized, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that it is not a case of direct evidence and prima facie story has not been channelized by the prosecution; present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. whereas Jay and Dev have been named; as per the C.D.R., location of the present application was found in Ashiyana that is away from the place of occurrence on the date of incident. Further there is a case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 12 of the rejoinder affidavit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.4.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant Vinay Singh involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; and (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ram Murti