Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. on 9 August, 2010
Author: Raj Mani Chauhan
Bench: Raj Mani Chauhan
Court No. - 20 Case :- BAIL No. - 5983 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Kirti Prakash Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Learned A.G.A. for the State files counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.
The accused applicants Vinod Kumar Shukla, S/o Sri Munshi Lal Shukla, R/o 288/31, Krishna Vihar, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur City, Permanent resident of Village Maraitee, P.S. Gajnair, District Kanpur Dehat and Amit @ Sonu Tewari, S/o Jageshwar Prasad, R/o 18/27 Krishna Vihar, Galla Mandi, P.S. Baubasta, District Kanpur City, Permanent R/o Village Semalpur, P.S. Jafarganj, District Fatehpur are involved and detained in case Crime No. 1010/2009, under Sections 302/201/328/394/411 IPC, from P.S. Bihar, District Unnao and they have applied for bail.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the accused- applicants are not named in the First Information Report. The accused applicants along with two others are said to have been arrested by the police of P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur City from Gujaini Highway Crossing within outpost Ratanlal Nagar of P.S. Govind Nagar. One looted truck was recovered from the possession of the accused and on their pointing out two other looted trucks were also recovered. The police on the basis of their confessional statements as well as recovery of trucks, registered a case against the accused under Sections 41/411/414/420/328/379 IPC for investigation. The accused applicants are said to have confessed that they had committed the murder of the deceased. As per version of the prosecution, accused Vinod Kumar Shukla was found in possession of one mobile handset which is said to belong to the deceased. Learned counsel contends that in fact the accused were not arrested by the police on 10.10.2009 as alleged by the prosecution; rather the police had picked up the accused from their houses on 07.10.2009. This fact was communicated by Anil Kumar Tewari, the brother of the accused Amit @ Sonu Tewari to the D.I.G./SSP, Kanpur City through telegram dated 08.10.2009. The police thereafter implicated all the accused in the false case as referred above in which the accused has already been ordered to be released on bail. The arrest and recovery of the accused as alleged by the prosecution, prima facie, appears to be false. The only evidence against the accused is that they confessed the commission of the murder of the deceased and a mobile handset of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the accused. But the so called recovery of mobile handset is manipulation. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence does not form a complete chain to show the involvement of the accused in the present case. They, therefore, deserve to be released on bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The accused have already been ordered to be released on bail by the order of the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar, under Seciton 420/328/379/41/411/414 IPC. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the accused may be released on bail.
Let the applicants Vinod Kumar Shukla and Amit @ Sonu Tewari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 9.8.2010 Santosh/-