High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA 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.177 of 2024, under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh. 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 as per the prosecution story, the applicant including other accused persons were involved in committing the offence, whereas the dead body is shown to be recovered from the straw-house of the applicant which is 400 ft. away from his residence. He added that in fact there was no door or lock in the straw-house and the police has concocted the story and has shown the recovery of dead body on the pointing out of the present applicant from his straw-house, which is noway believable. He added that in fact the story is otherwise that the applicant was in love with the deceased and this case relates to honour killing, as the family members of the deceased were involved in the offence and in fact, they have committed the murder and thrown the dead body in the straw-house of the applicant. He also submitted that it is important that there is no independent public eye witness or any eye witness with respect to the offence committed and on the basis of suspicion, the applicant is planted in the present matter by the police. Further submission is that except apart the fact that the dead body was recovered from the straw-house of the applicant, which is 400 ft. away from his residence, there is no other material or substantial evidence is found or collected by the Investigating Agency. He also added that no one can deny that the deceased died due to some injury occurred in her body that too of firearm but who had opened the fire cannot be materialized at this stage. Next submission is that the other co-accused persons, who are said to have involved in committing the offence, have already been enlarged on bail and only distinction of the present applicant with other co-accused persons is that the dead body of the deceased was found in the straw-house of the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant has no previous criminal history and chargesheet has been filed and it is not a case that the applicant has ever absconded from the criminal proceedings. Adding his argument, he submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 28.08.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and the dead body, admittedly, is found in the premises of the applicant. He also submits that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of other co-accused persons, who are already enlarged on bail, as no one has seen them to be involved in committing the offence, whereas the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the premises of the applicant. He next submits that applicant is main accused and thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Sri Ajay Veer Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing Vakalatanama and has argued that the applicant is main culprit as the dead body of the deceased is recovered from the straw-house of the applicant. He also submits that the case of other co-accused persons cannot be equated with the case of present applicant as he is a key player of the offence, thus, he is not entitled for bail. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no eye witness of the offence; the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the straw-house of the applicant which is 400 ft. away from his residence; the applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion as well as recovery of the dead body from his premises. This Court has also noticed the fact that there is no other evidence except apart that the dead body was recovered from the straw-house of the applicant having no door or lock and further the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is cooperating in the criminal proceeding, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 28.04.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted 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-Jaichandra Verma 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 :- 10.2.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA 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.177 of 2024, under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh. 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 as per the prosecution story, the applicant including other accused persons were involved in committing the offence, whereas the dead body is shown to be recovered from the straw-house of the applicant which is 400 ft. away from his residence. He added that in fact there was no door or lock in the straw-house and the police has concocted the story and has shown the recovery of dead body on the pointing out of the present applicant from his straw-house, which is noway believable. He added that in fact the story is otherwise that the applicant was in love with the deceased and this case relates to honour killing, as the family members of the deceased were involved in the offence and in fact, they have committed the murder and thrown the dead body in the straw-house of the applicant. He also submitted that it is important that there is no independent public eye witness or any eye witness with respect to the offence committed and on the basis of suspicion, the applicant is planted in the present matter by the police. Further submission is that except apart the fact that the dead body was recovered from the straw-house of the applicant, which is 400 ft. away from his residence, there is no other material or substantial evidence is found or collected by the Investigating Agency. He also added that no one can deny that the deceased died due to some injury occurred in her body that too of firearm but who had opened the fire cannot be materialized at this stage. Next submission is that the other co-accused persons, who are said to have involved in committing the offence, have already been enlarged on bail and only distinction of the present applicant with other co-accused persons is that the dead body of the deceased was found in the straw-house of the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant has no previous criminal history and chargesheet has been filed and it is not a case that the applicant has ever absconded from the criminal proceedings. Adding his argument, he submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 28.08.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and the dead body, admittedly, is found in the premises of the applicant. He also submits that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of other co-accused persons, who are already enlarged on bail, as no one has seen them to be involved in committing the offence, whereas the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the premises of the applicant. He next submits that applicant is main accused and thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Sri Ajay Veer Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing Vakalatanama and has argued that the applicant is main culprit as the dead body of the deceased is recovered from the straw-house of the applicant. He also submits that the case of other co-accused persons cannot be equated with the case of present applicant as he is a key player of the offence, thus, he is not entitled for bail. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no eye witness of the offence; the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the straw-house of the applicant which is 400 ft. away from his residence; the applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion as well as recovery of the dead body from his premises. This Court has also noticed the fact that there is no other evidence except apart that the dead body was recovered from the straw-house of the applicant having no door or lock and further the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is cooperating in the criminal proceeding, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 28.04.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted 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-Jaichandra Verma 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 :- 10.2.2025 kkv/ KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench