High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0044 of 2025 under sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) B.N.S. P.S.- Uchaullia District - Lakhimpur Khiri. The factual matrix of the prosecution story is that Ashok Singh, the informant narrated the story that the deceased Devendra Singh was his son and was employed in a plywood factory in Sandila and was residing at his in-law's residence with his wife and children for last one and a half year and he used to visit his native village to over see the agricultural activities at his land. Further, alleged that on 11.2.2025, the deceased arrived at his parental house in the evening and requested food from his mother which was dropped by his mother from roof top and again on 12.2.2025, the same was repeated, but when on 13.2.2025 there was no communication from the deceased, the mother of the deceased informed the wife of the deceased that their is no whereabouts of the deceased and thereafter, the family members searched and found the deceased inside the room which was locked and when the door of the room was broken out, the dead body was found lying on the floor of the room and hands and legs were tightened with a towel and there were injuries inflicted with sharp edged weapon on the right side of his head. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report and only on the statement of the co-accused namely, Karan Singh, he has been implicated in this matter. He next added that the motive which has been assigned to the applicant for committing the offence is not trustworthy as it was stated that it is a supari killing and Karan Singh was told by the present applicant that once he would kill the deceased, he will also transfer six bigha of land to him though, the fact remains that the father, mother, wife and children of the deceased are alive and thus, as per the provisions of law, no land could be inherited by the applicant. He further added that the last seen evidence is against the applicant, on 12.2.2025 wherein, he has been seen with the accused Karan Singh at 7:30 pm, but the same also do not corroborate with the time of death from the postmortem report to prove the proximity. He further argued on the basis of suspicion, the name of the present applicant is implicated in the instant matter and the prosecution has failed to channelised the story and being the case of circumstantial evidence, the matter would not lead to the punishment. He also submitted that subsequently, when the truth came into the knowledge of the informant, he wrote a letter to the S.P., Lakhimpur Khiri appended as annexure no. 9 page 51 of the bail application and prayed that the present applicant was not involved in committing the offence and on the instance of village person, he deposed his statement regarding his involvement with the police. He also added that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and there is no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.2.2025 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that on the basis of confessional statement of the main accused Karan Singh, the applicant was found involved in committing the offence and thorough investigation was conducted and ample evidence has been collected against him and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the instant case is of circumstantial evidence and prima facie, the prosecution has failed to channelized the story. Further, the name of the present applicant came into light only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, Karan Singh and except apart, there seems to be no other substantial evidence against the applicant. This Court has also taken note of fact that the motive assigned is unbelievable and further the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.2.2025 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Vijay Kumar Singh @ Pappu 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 :- 16.5.2025/Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0044 of 2025 under sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) B.N.S. P.S.- Uchaullia District - Lakhimpur Khiri. The factual matrix of the prosecution story is that Ashok Singh, the informant narrated the story that the deceased Devendra Singh was his son and was employed in a plywood factory in Sandila and was residing at his in-law's residence with his wife and children for last one and a half year and he used to visit his native village to over see the agricultural activities at his land. Further, alleged that on 11.2.2025, the deceased arrived at his parental house in the evening and requested food from his mother which was dropped by his mother from roof top and again on 12.2.2025, the same was repeated, but when on 13.2.2025 there was no communication from the deceased, the mother of the deceased informed the wife of the deceased that their is no whereabouts of the deceased and thereafter, the family members searched and found the deceased inside the room which was locked and when the door of the room was broken out, the dead body was found lying on the floor of the room and hands and legs were tightened with a towel and there were injuries inflicted with sharp edged weapon on the right side of his head. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report and only on the statement of the co-accused namely, Karan Singh, he has been implicated in this matter. He next added that the motive which has been assigned to the applicant for committing the offence is not trustworthy as it was stated that it is a supari killing and Karan Singh was told by the present applicant that once he would kill the deceased, he will also transfer six bigha of land to him though, the fact remains that the father, mother, wife and children of the deceased are alive and thus, as per the provisions of law, no land could be inherited by the applicant. He further added that the last seen evidence is against the applicant, on 12.2.2025 wherein, he has been seen with the accused Karan Singh at 7:30 pm, but the same also do not corroborate with the time of death from the postmortem report to prove the proximity. He further argued on the basis of suspicion, the name of the present applicant is implicated in the instant matter and the prosecution has failed to channelised the story and being the case of circumstantial evidence, the matter would not lead to the punishment. He also submitted that subsequently, when the truth came into the knowledge of the informant, he wrote a letter to the S.P., Lakhimpur Khiri appended as annexure no. 9 page 51 of the bail application and prayed that the present applicant was not involved in committing the offence and on the instance of village person, he deposed his statement regarding his involvement with the police. He also added that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and there is no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.2.2025 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that on the basis of confessional statement of the main accused Karan Singh, the applicant was found involved in committing the offence and thorough investigation was conducted and ample evidence has been collected against him and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the instant case is of circumstantial evidence and prima facie, the prosecution has failed to channelized the story. Further, the name of the present applicant came into light only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, Karan Singh and except apart, there seems to be no other substantial evidence against the applicant. This Court has also taken note of fact that the motive assigned is unbelievable and further the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.2.2025 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Vijay Kumar Singh @ Pappu 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 :- 16.5.2025/Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench