# Atul Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 97
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-07
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48271
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302/34, 394,
411,
120-B
-
challenge
toconviction/death-penalty-murder-no
motive-no previous enmity-weak direct
evidence-deceased died of asphyxia as a
result
of
ante-mortem
stangulationstatement of PW-1 the only eye-witness is
not worthy of credence-her statemetns
are contradictory what have been written
in FIR and what have been stated in the
court-the source of light has not been
shown in the site plan-in the darkness of
night, it is not possible to witness the
incident which is being caused in a
orchard-PW-1
stated
accused
looted
jewellery and mobile but not mentioned in
FIR-Similarly, in her examination -in -
chief, she stated that the accused were
armed with small guns but nothing is
there in the FIR-She stated that some
village-people
saw
the
incident,
at
another place she denies the same-Thus,
the story of prosecution is not worthy of
credence, to prove the charge levelled
against the convict beyond reasonable
doubt-Thus the appellant is entitled for
acquittal.(Para 1 to 30)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Atul Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
97
SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE
VICTIM
BEFORE
THE
COURT
WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF HIS RELEASE
ON BAIL, ELSE THE BAIL ORDER IS
LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED BY THE
COURT
CONCERNED
ITSELF
WITHOUT
REVERTING
THE
ORDERS TO THE COURT.

(iI) THE APPLICANT SHALL
FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE
EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK
ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE
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.

(iiI) 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 IPC.

(iv)
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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF
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 IPC.

(v) THE APPLICANT SHALL
REMAIN
PRESENT,
IN
PERSON,
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON
DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF
THE
CASE,
(2)
FRAMING
OF
CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313
CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE
TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE
APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR
WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT
CAUSE,
THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH
DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF
BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(vi) THE TRIAL COURT MAY
MAKE
ALL
POSSIBLE
EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO
CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE
RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

22. It is made clear that observations
made in granting bail to the applicant shall
not in any way affect the learned trial Judge
in forming his independent opinion based
on the testimony of the witnesses.

23. Since the bail application has been
decided
under
extra-ordinary
circumstances, thus in the interest of justice
following additional conditions are being
imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be
released on bail forthwith. Needless to
mention that these additional conditions are
imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

1.
The
applicant
shall
be
enlarged on bail on execution of personal
bond
without
sureties
till
normal
functioning of the courts is restored. The
accused will furnish sureties to the
satisfaction of the court below within a
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
month after normal functioning of the
courts are restored.

2. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

3. The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

4.
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration
of
such
verification
in
writing.

24. However, it is made clear that any
wilful violation of above conditions by the
applicant, shall have serious repercussion
on his/her bail so granted by this Court and
the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail,
after recording the reasons for doing so, in
the given case of any of the condition
mentioned above.
----------
(2022)03ILR A98
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Capital Sentence (Reference) No. 2 of 2017
connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2022

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Rahul Singh @ Govind Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jyotindra Mishra, Senior Advocate and
Shri Kapil Misra, Advocate
Counsel for the Respodent:
Shri Vimal Srivastava, Govt. Advocate and
Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Additional
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302/34, 394,
411,
120-B
-
challenge
toconviction/death-penalty-murder-no
motive-no previous enmity-weak direct
evidence-deceased died of asphyxia as a
result
of
ante-mortem
stangulationstatement of PW-1 the only eye-witness is
not worthy of credence-her statemetns
are contradictory what have been written
in FIR and what have been stated in the
court-the source of light has not been
shown in the site plan-in the darkness of
night, it is not possible to witness the
incident which is being caused in a
orchard-PW-1
stated
accused
looted
jewellery and mobile but not mentioned in
FIR-Similarly, in her examination -in -
chief, she stated that the accused were
armed with small guns but nothing is
there in the FIR-She stated that some
village-people
saw
the
incident,
at
another place she denies the same-Thus,
the story of prosecution is not worthy of
credence, to prove the charge levelled
against the convict beyond reasonable
doubt-Thus the appellant is entitled for
acquittal.(Para 1 to 30)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajeev Singh Vs St. of Bih. & anr. (2015) 16
SCC 369

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This Capital sentence Reference
registered as Capital Sentence No.2 of 2017
was made to this Court under Section 366
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 'Cr.P.C.') for confirmation of Capital
sentence awarded to the convict Rahul