Kishori v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Kishori with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29464 of 2021 (Kishori vs. State of U.P.).

5. The second bail application of the applicant was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14113 of 2022 (Kishori vs. State of U.P.).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the first informant Tulsidas has been examined as P.W.-1. The wife of first informant Kashmiri has also been examined as P.W.-2. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed statement of P.W.-1 which is annexure – 6 to the bail application and the statement of P.W.-2 which is annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.12.2022 and has argued that perusal of the said statement would go to show that witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case and thus, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is submitted that the co-accused, namely, Jagpal, Sheoraj and Vinit Alias Lala have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated

17.08.2021, 02.09.2021 and 08.02.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 18092 of 2021, 23383 of 2021 and 2495 of 2022 respectively, copies of the orders have been placed before this Court which are Annexure-7 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2020 and he may be directed to be released on bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first and second bail application of the applicant have been rejected by this Court on merits. It is submitted that insofar as the co-accused persons being granted bail is concerned, the same has already been considered by this Court in the second bail application after which it was rejected vide order dated 25.11.2022. It is further submitted that two witnesses have been examined in the trial court who have supported the prosecution case and appreciation of their evidence is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. It is further submitted that the prayer for bail be thus rejected.

8. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties, perusing the records, it is evident that this is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021. The same reads as under :- "Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Kishori, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that initially, an information was given by the first informant himself to the police which was registered in GD No. 21 on 07.07.2020 stating therein that his son Kudleep @ Sukha had gone missing from the house around 5-6 days back after which, his dead body was found hanging from a Neem tree with a dupatta. Later on, the first information report of the present case was got registered by Tulsi Das himself on 08.07.2020, naming the applicant and three other co-accused persons as accused, stating therein that they have murdered his son Kuldeep @ Sukha as he had seen the accused persons murdering his daughter Sukhdevi @ Sukhia and one Bunty with whom they had some relation and Bunty was the cousin of his daughter. It is argued that the allegation therein is false and incorrect. Learned counsel has argued that the first information report regarding the murder of Sukhdevi @ Sukhia and Bunty was got registered by Binnami, the father of Bunty against Vineet @ Lala, Kishori (the applicant), Jagpal and Shyoraj as Case Crime No. 249 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal. It is argued that there is no eye- witness to the murder. The present case, is a case of circumstantial evidence and even the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and as such, viscera was preserved and viscera report is still awaited. The applicant apart from the present case, is involved in the previous case also but has no other criminal antecedents and is in jail since 08.07.2020. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant is the father of the applicant and also the father of deceased (Kuldeep @ Sukha). It is argued that since the dead body was found in a highly decomposed condition and was hanging from a tree with a cloth, the cause of death could not be ascertained. The doctor had opined time since death to be around 4-7 days. It is argued that the doctor although has noted in the postmortem examination report that some cloth was tied around neck but the ligature mark is not appreciable due to decomposition of neck muscles and lower jaw fell off as was eaten by maggots and as such, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant by his father only. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the first informant is the father of the applicant and of the deceased Kuldeep @ Sukha. He is even also the father of the girl Sukhdevi @ Sukhia, who had earlier lost her life. There is no reason coming forward for false implication of the applicant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

9. The second bail application of the applicant was also rejected by this Court vide order 25.11.2022. The same reads as under :- "Heard Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29464 of 2021 (Kishori vs. State of U.P.). This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Kishori, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Section 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dhanari,,District Sambhal. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as a matter of fact Tulsi Das is not the first informant of the present case. The first information report was got lodged by the police. It is argued that co-accused Vinit @ Lala has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2495 of 2022, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-16 to the affidavit. It is argued that as such applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2020. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the first bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. It is argued that there is no new and fresh ground pleaded in the present bail application. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. In so far as the order of co-accused is concerned, parity may have its persuasive value but it is not binding upon this Court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

10. Insofar as, the co-accused persons, namely, Jagpal, Sheoraj and Vinit Alias Lala who have been granted bail are concerned, the said fact has already been considered by this Court while deciding the second bail application of the applicant. In the trial two witnesses have been examined and appreciation of their evidence is for the trial to do at the appropriate stage. There is no fresh and new ground for bail is made out to entertain the present bail application.

11. In view of the above, the present bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Kishori with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29464 of 2021 (Kishori vs. State of U.P.).

5. The second bail application of the applicant was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14113 of 2022 (Kishori vs. State of U.P.).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the first informant Tulsidas has been examined as P.W.-1. The wife of first informant Kashmiri has also been examined as P.W.-2. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed statement of P.W.-1 which is annexure – 6 to the bail application and the statement of P.W.-2 which is annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.12.2022 and has argued that perusal of the said statement would go to show that witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case and thus, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is submitted that the co-accused, namely, Jagpal, Sheoraj and Vinit Alias Lala have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated

17.08.2021, 02.09.2021 and 08.02.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 18092 of 2021, 23383 of 2021 and 2495 of 2022 respectively, copies of the orders have been placed before this Court which are Annexure-7 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2020 and he may be directed to be released on bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first and second bail application of the applicant have been rejected by this Court on merits. It is submitted that insofar as the co-accused persons being granted bail is concerned, the same has already been considered by this Court in the second bail application after which it was rejected vide order dated 25.11.2022. It is further submitted that two witnesses have been examined in the trial court who have supported the prosecution case and appreciation of their evidence is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. It is further submitted that the prayer for bail be thus rejected.

8. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties, perusing the records, it is evident that this is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021. The same reads as under :- "Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Kishori, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that initially, an information was given by the first informant himself to the police which was registered in GD No. 21 on 07.07.2020 stating therein that his son Kudleep @ Sukha had gone missing from the house around 5-6 days back after which, his dead body was found hanging from a Neem tree with a dupatta. Later on, the first information report of the present case was got registered by Tulsi Das himself on 08.07.2020, naming the applicant and three other co-accused persons as accused, stating therein that they have murdered his son Kuldeep @ Sukha as he had seen the accused persons murdering his daughter Sukhdevi @ Sukhia and one Bunty with whom they had some relation and Bunty was the cousin of his daughter. It is argued that the allegation therein is false and incorrect. Learned counsel has argued that the first information report regarding the murder of Sukhdevi @ Sukhia and Bunty was got registered by Binnami, the father of Bunty against Vineet @ Lala, Kishori (the applicant), Jagpal and Shyoraj as Case Crime No. 249 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal. It is argued that there is no eye- witness to the murder. The present case, is a case of circumstantial evidence and even the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and as such, viscera was preserved and viscera report is still awaited. The applicant apart from the present case, is involved in the previous case also but has no other criminal antecedents and is in jail since 08.07.2020. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant is the father of the applicant and also the father of deceased (Kuldeep @ Sukha). It is argued that since the dead body was found in a highly decomposed condition and was hanging from a tree with a cloth, the cause of death could not be ascertained. The doctor had opined time since death to be around 4-7 days. It is argued that the doctor although has noted in the postmortem examination report that some cloth was tied around neck but the ligature mark is not appreciable due to decomposition of neck muscles and lower jaw fell off as was eaten by maggots and as such, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant by his father only. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the first informant is the father of the applicant and of the deceased Kuldeep @ Sukha. He is even also the father of the girl Sukhdevi @ Sukhia, who had earlier lost her life. There is no reason coming forward for false implication of the applicant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

9. The second bail application of the applicant was also rejected by this Court vide order 25.11.2022. The same reads as under :- "Heard Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29464 of 2021 (Kishori vs. State of U.P.). This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Kishori, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Section 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dhanari,,District Sambhal. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as a matter of fact Tulsi Das is not the first informant of the present case. The first information report was got lodged by the police. It is argued that co-accused Vinit @ Lala has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2495 of 2022, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-16 to the affidavit. It is argued that as such applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2020. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the first bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. It is argued that there is no new and fresh ground pleaded in the present bail application. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. In so far as the order of co-accused is concerned, parity may have its persuasive value but it is not binding upon this Court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

10. Insofar as, the co-accused persons, namely, Jagpal, Sheoraj and Vinit Alias Lala who have been granted bail are concerned, the said fact has already been considered by this Court while deciding the second bail application of the applicant. In the trial two witnesses have been examined and appreciation of their evidence is for the trial to do at the appropriate stage. There is no fresh and new ground for bail is made out to entertain the present bail application.

11. In view of the above, the present bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad