Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 63 (ALL)

Lalu v. State of U. P.

2020-01-07

AJIT SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 710 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Sirsaganj, district-Firozabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 3. The first information report was lodged against unknown person, alleging therein that elder brother of the complainant Vipin Srivastava, aged about 27 years had gone to Firozabad for earning his livelihood one year ago. From that date neither he came to home nor he had talked to anyone. He was habitual drinker. On 21.12.2018 at about 7:00 p.m. the Gram Pradhan of the village named Ravendra Kumar Mishra had informed the complainant that the dead body of his brother was found in police station-Sirsa at Firozabad. On the information of the Gram Pradhan, the complainant along with his relatives rushed to mortuary and identified the dead body of his brother. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time in the confessional statement of Monu, which was recorded after ten months of the incident, in which he had stated that co-accused Yashpal had strangulated the deceased with 'gamcha', while he had caught hold the legs of the deceased, Pawan and the present accused had caught hold the hands of the deceased and to that extent the applicant's role is clearly distinguishable. No incriminating articles or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 15.10.2019 and has no criminal antecedent to his credit, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that if the deceased had not caught hold by the applicant he may have managed to escape and save his life, hence the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that if the deceased had not caught hold by the applicant he may have managed to escape and save his life, hence the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. 6. Let the applicant, Lalu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- 1. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release. 2. He will not tamper with the witnesses. 3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. 7. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.