High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54193 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10294 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nishith Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2024, under Sections 147, 328, 302, 420, 467, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Mahrajpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.07.2024 against applicant and six others including co-accused Lavkush and
Facts
according to FIR, co-accused Lavkush, brother of informant along with other co-accused persons including applicant by playing fraud grab the entire agricultural land of mother of the informant.It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 07.06.2017 and on 18.02.2021 by playing fraud, he got executed a gift deed and Will from her and in both the documents, applicant, who is his brother- in-law(sadu), was one of the witness and he and other accused persons including applicant with intention to cause death of mother of the informant provided poison to her and due to which she died on 28.04.2021. 4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that in similar pattern on 27.02.2021, they have committed the murder of younger brother of the informant namely Pawan and when they were taking his dead body for cremation then after getting information police arrived at spot and post-mortem was conducted and after post-mortem, his viscera was preserved. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.07.2024 through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 30.06.2022 and however, as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant and other accused persons by administering poison also committed the murder of mother of the informant but except bald and verbal allegation, there is no cogent evidence in this regard on record. He further submitted that even post-mortem of mother of the informant is not on record. 6. He further submitted that the next allegation against the applicant and others is that they also committed the murder of brother of the informant in the same patter i.e. by administering poison and however, as per viscera report, he died due to consumption of insecticide but there is absolutely no evidence, which can show that applicant administered any poison to him.He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects that he died on 27.02.2021 but in spite of that application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 30.06.2022 i.e. after 14 months. 7. He further submitted that applicant is brother-in-law(sadu) of co-accused Lavkush, who happened to be the brother of informant and only due to this reason, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that applicant is having no concern with the property dispute arose between two brothers i.e. co-accused Lavkush and informant. 8. He further submitted that earlier also informant tried to implicate the applicant and other accused persons in a case of fraud in the year 2017 and he lodged a complaint against him and others but his complaint was dismissed U/s 203 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that after dismissal of complaint, the order passed by the court concerned was challenged by the informant in Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2023 before Sessions Court and learned revisional court vide order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed his revision and while dismissing the revision in paragraph no. 9, a specific observation has been made that from perusal of the record, it reflects, mother of the informant in her life span ousted the informant from her entire movable and immovable property and thereafter co-accused Lavkush became the sole successor of her.
Legal Reasoning
This fact prima facie suggests that as informant could not get the property of his mother, therefore, after her death and unfortunate death of his brother, he on the basis of false allegation lodged the FIR of the present case after more than a year through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and without any evidence, applicant has also been roped in the present matter only being close relative of co-accused Lavkush. 9. He further submitted that from perusal of record, it reflects that in the present matter, applicant has been made accused with the aid of Section 120-B IPC but there is no evidence of hatching conspiracy against him. 10. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 13.12.2024. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the brother-in-law(sadu) of co-accused Lavkush, who happened to be the real brother of informant and co-accused Lavkush with the help of applicant and others grabbed the entire property of mother of informant and in the gift deed and Will allegedly executed by mother of the informant, applicant was one of the witness. 12. They further submitted that when the statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation then they also indicated the involvement of the applicant but they could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. quite belatedly and even application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after 14 months. 13. They further could not dispute the fact that except the bald and verbal allegation, there is neither any cogent evidence of conspiracy nor any evidence that applicant administered poison to the deceased persons. 14. They further could not dispute the fact that in another case, the revisional court in revision filed by the informant observed that in her life span, mother of the informant has ousted him from her entire property and after that co-accused Lavkush became the sole successor of her. 15. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 13.12.2024. 16. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 17. Applicant is, however, named in the FIR but he is the brother- in-law(sadu) of co-accused Lavkush, who happened to be the real brother of the informant and as per allegation, he involved in hatching conspiracy of murders of mother of the informant and his younger brother but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after more than a year through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after 14 months. 18. Further, from the viscera report of the deceased Pawan i.e. younger brother of the informant, however, it reflects, he died due to consumption of insecticide but there is no evidence that applicant administered any poison to him and except the bald and verbal allegation that applicant hatched conspiracy in commission of his murder, there is no evidence in this regard. Further, with regard to death of the mother of informant, there is no evidence that she was even murdered and her post-mortem is also not on record. 19. Further, dispute with regard to property of mother of informant and co-accused Lavkush is pending between both of them and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as applicant is brother-in-law(sadu) of co- accused Lavkush, therefore, only due to this reason, he has been made accused in the present matter cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 20. Further, however, from the record, it reflects that in the gift deed and Will executed by mother of the informant and co-accused Lavkush, applicant is one of the witness but merely on this basis, it cannot be said that he also involved in hatching conspiracy. 21. Further, record also suggests that informant earlier also in the year 2022 filed a criminal complaint against co-accused Lavkush and others including applicant with regard to fraud committed by them in respect of property of mother of the informant and co- accused Lavkush but his complaint was dismissed and thereafter when informant challenged the order passed by the court concerned before Sessions Court then learned revisional court also dismissed his revision and while dismissing the revision, an observation was made that in her life span, mother of the informant ousted the informant from her entire property and thereafter co-accused Lavkush became the sole successor. Considering all these facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that only due to property dispute, informant lodged the FIR of the present case and being one of the close relative of co-accused Lavkush, applicant has also been made accused in the present matter, cannot be completely ruled out. 22. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 13.12.2024. 23. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 24. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 25. Let the applicant- Sunil Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 26. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 27. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 11.4.2025/KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad