The Supreme Court today has issued notice on a plea filed by a complainant against the Allahabad High Court order which had granted bail to the man accused of murdering his brother.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose has heard the application by Complainant Laxman Prasad Pandey who moved the Supreme Court against bail granted to Anjani Kumar Shukla @ Radhey by the High Court of Allahabad. (Laxman Prasad Pandey versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.).
The Supreme Court said we are issuing notice only for the purpose of examining the evidences at later stage.
Justice Dinesh told to Sakshi Kakkar, counsel for Petitioner – “we were not inclined to issue notice, but we are only issuing only for specific purpose.”
Accused Anjani Kumar Shukla had sought bail u/s 439 CRPC from the High Court for the offences committed under Sections 147,148,149,307,302, 188 of IndianPenal Code and 27/30 Arms Act.
The Petitioner before the Apex Court Laxman is brother of the deceased who received injuries on the spot of incident and died instantly, while he was being taken to hospital. The fact of the matter is that the Petitioner had paid amount in advance for purchase of plot to AnjaniKumar Shukla. When the complainant got aware of fact that said plot is disputed, then he urged Anjani to refund the amount. Anjani called the Petitioner to the plot, therefore Laxman reached along with his brother Ram Prasad Pandey, Subhash Saini, SurendraTiwari and ors. Unknown accused persons were already there including Anjani itself, carrying with repeated, pistol and rifle. On the exhortation accused persons snatched pistol from the hands of brother of the Petitioner and other accused persons including Anjani started indiscriminate firing upon Laxman and his deceased brother Ram Prasad and other persons who were with them , as a result brother of petitioner i.e. Ram Prasad received injuries and fell down. The complainant and other associates also received fire arm injuries.
The Hon’ble High court observed that prosecution has failed to elucidate the injuries received by Anjani Kumar Shukla.
Anjani Kumar Shukla contended before the High court that the prosecution admits per se that crime has occurred at the place of Anjani Kumar Shukla. It was Laxman who arrived along with others with armed weapons to the place of Anjani Shukla. It was further stated that the place of Petitioner is 5-6 kms away from place of Anjani Kumar Shukla.
“Furthermore, it was also a not a case of prosecution that any injured has received any injury from gun of Anjani Kumar Shukla,” Counsel for Anjani Kumar Shukla apprised the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.
The Allahabad High Court Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar had noted in his order, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.”
He had granted bail to accused under the following condition, “(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant 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.
Read Also: Madras High Court wants Centre’s clarification on when Covid-19 vaccine booster dose should be given
(vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
Source: ILNS