High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Mo. Kalam @ Kamal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.147 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Karanda, District Ghazipur.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 26.11.2023 by Roshan Khatoon against the applicant alleging therein that on 25.11.2023 her husband was working in a tyre puncture shop. Her nephew Mohd. Kamal who was in front of the shop had taken him. Today she has come to know that the body of her husband is lying in Karanda police station area and he has been murdered by Kamal who is absconding. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that there is no eye-witness of the incident mentioned in the FIR. It is further argued that the FIR has been lodged on suspicion only. It is further argued that the first informant Roshan Khatoon in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. states that in the afternoon her elder son Mohd. Shahid went to give food but later on in her statement recorded before the trial court as P.W.1, she states that she went to give food to her husband in the shop, as such even the version of the first informant is not reliable. It is further argued that although it has been shown that Chapar has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant but there is no independent eye- witness to the alleged recovery and the said recovery is a planted recovery. It is further argued that the applicant is involved in two other cases, disclosure and explanation of which is given in para 41 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2023.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is a recovery of Chapar on his pointing out. It is further argued that the postmortem examination report of the deceased shows that he has received one incised wound and cause of death was coma and haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury, as such medical examination report corroborates with the recovered weapon. The prayer for bail be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no eye-witness to the murder. The implication of the applicant as mentioned in the FIR is on account of suspicion only.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant-Mo. Kalam @ Kamal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Mo. Kalam @ Kamal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.147 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Karanda, District Ghazipur.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 26.11.2023 by Roshan Khatoon against the applicant alleging therein that on 25.11.2023 her husband was working in a tyre puncture shop. Her nephew Mohd. Kamal who was in front of the shop had taken him. Today she has come to know that the body of her husband is lying in Karanda police station area and he has been murdered by Kamal who is absconding. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that there is no eye-witness of the incident mentioned in the FIR. It is further argued that the FIR has been lodged on suspicion only. It is further argued that the first informant Roshan Khatoon in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. states that in the afternoon her elder son Mohd. Shahid went to give food but later on in her statement recorded before the trial court as P.W.1, she states that she went to give food to her husband in the shop, as such even the version of the first informant is not reliable. It is further argued that although it has been shown that Chapar has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant but there is no independent eye- witness to the alleged recovery and the said recovery is a planted recovery. It is further argued that the applicant is involved in two other cases, disclosure and explanation of which is given in para 41 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2023.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is a recovery of Chapar on his pointing out. It is further argued that the postmortem examination report of the deceased shows that he has received one incised wound and cause of death was coma and haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury, as such medical examination report corroborates with the recovered weapon. The prayer for bail be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no eye-witness to the murder. The implication of the applicant as mentioned in the FIR is on account of suspicion only.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant-Mo. Kalam @ Kamal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad