High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89734 Court No. - 36 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10519 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Vishwakarma @ Hukka Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiva Pandey,Shrish Chandra,Siddhant Sahai,Sundaram Singh,Suraj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Muktesh Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40366 of 2023.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material available on record. 4. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.165 of 2023, under Sections 306 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Mariahu, District- Jaunpur. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards bank statement of the deceased which shows that the deceased had a closing balance of Rs.2,11,417/- in his saving bank account at the relevant time and deceased owned substantial immovable assets worth almost Rs.20/- lacs, including ancestral property and ownership of two commercial shops and it is also admitted that the deceased sold his property worth Rs.23/- lacs, which was situated in Mumbai, out of which, a substantial amount of Rs.10/- lacs was received by him. He further submits that the deceased was not in financial crises and he had murdered his wife and children and committed suicide himself on his own choice. 6. He further submits that there are much time gap between the alleged transaction and incident. As per FIR as well as statement of the witnesses, only offence under Section 420 IPC could be made out, no offence under Section 306 is made out against the applicant. He submits that the alleged suicide note was never sent for FSL verification. Further submission of learned counsel is that there is no evidence on record which goes to show that applicant in any manner had ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. An offence punishable under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetement for commission of crime. Except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing even the contents of abetment of suicide have not been there as provided under Section 107 IPC. As per provisions of Section 306 IPC, there must be an ingredient of abetment to commit suicide but in the present case there is no ingredient of abetment either by instigation or by any other mode has been made by the applicant. Prima facie, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there are 13 witnesses in the charge sheet and till date, only one witness i.e. P.W.1 has been examined before the trial Court, therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant is the only sole bread earner in his family, having his wife and two minor children. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.7.2023 having no previous criminal history. 8. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. 10. Let the applicant- Bhanu Pratap Vishwakarma @ Hukka, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) 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. (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 her under Section 229-A IPC. (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., 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 IPC. (iv) 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. (v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 13. With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Krishna* Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad