# Sumit Kumar @ Angrej v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 885
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-06
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 11740 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sumit-kumar-angrej-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-48071
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 & 201 -Name of the Applicant
not taken by neither informant nor by
deceased's wife in her first St.mentdeceased's wife in her second St.ment
recorded after 2 months took Applicant's
name-present
case-of
circumstantial
evidence-no continuing chain of evidence.

Bail granted. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Sumit Kumar @ Angrej Vs. State of U.P.
885
accused to prove the contrary. Judging the
evidence in the present case from that
perspective, I am constrained to hold that
the version of the victim (PW-1) and her
mother (PW-2) with regard to twin
incidents of 24th March, 2016 and 18th
April, 2016 if taken as whole, do not
inspire confidence and runs contrary to
normal human conduct in the backdrop of
the broad probabilities of the present case."

18. The want of criminal antecedent
on the part of the accused is not of
probative value in support of his plea of
innocence
as
against
the
nature
of
accusation imputed on him by an innocent
girl child of 4 years. The gravity of offence
and severity of punishment also do not
warrant the release on bail looking into the
fact that accused-applicant resides in the
neighbourhood of the child victim may
under the fear of severe punishment in case
the trial succeeds against him. Prima facie,
there is no facts on record rebutting the
presumption against the accused.

19. In view of the discussions made
herein-above,
without
making
any
comment as to the merit of the case,
keeping into mind the gravity of offence
and severity of offence as well as the
prima
case
of
the
prosecution
is
established against the accused-applicant,
I find no force in the submission of
learned counsel for the bail applicant for
grant of bail. The bail application of
accused-applicant-Utkarsh
Patel
@
Utkarsh @ Uttu @ Raj Patel, involved in
Case Crime No. 64 of 2021, under
Sections 376AB, 323, 506 IPC and
Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered
at
Police
Station
Banthra,
District
Lucknow, is hereby rejected.

20. Learned trial court, keeping in
view the future of the child, is directed to
conclude the trial as practically as possible
expeditiously. The trial court is further
directed to not to be sweared with the
observations made herein-above while
deciding the case on merit on the basis of
evidences duly examined and proved
before it.
----------
(2022)01ILR A885
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 11740 of 2021

Sumit Kumar @ Angrej ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Neelam Verma, Sanjiva Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 & 201 -Name of the Applicant
not taken by neither informant nor by
deceased's wife in her first St.mentdeceased's wife in her second St.ment
recorded after 2 months took Applicant's
name-present
case-of
circumstantial
evidence-no continuing chain of evidence.

Bail granted. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Criminal Appeal no. 1704/2017-Balkrishna
Tukaram Angre Vs The St. of Maharashtra

2. Dataram Singh Vs St. of UP & anr, (2018) 3
SCC 22
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Mrs. Neelam Verma, learned
counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. Applicant has moved the present bail
application seeking bail in Case Crime No.
98 of 2021 Under sections 302 and 201
I.P.C.,Police Station-Kheri, District Kheri.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that as per the prosecution case on
9.3.2021 Ankit Singh (complainant) had
registered a Gumsudgi report regarding
missing of his brother namely Pinku Singh
(deceased) who had left his house on
8.3.2021 at about 6.00 p.m. having mobile
no. 9838642966 and did not return to his
house till 9.45 p.m. On 11.3.2021, the corpse
of the deceased was found in the field.
Thereafter a first information report was
lodged unknown on 13.3.2021 at 14.01 Hrs.
registered as case crime no. 98 of 2021 under
sections 302 and 201, Police Station- Kheri,
District Kheri.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that in the statement
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. first
time i.e. on 13.3.2021, complainant has
stated that deceased used to do farming
with
the
accused
applicant
taking
agricultural land on contract. The deceased
used to collect the money from the group
of ladies who were members of a group
and deposit the same with the Bank. The
account was opened in the name of two
ladies namely Pappi and Sunita. He further
stated that deceased had left his house
informing his wife Radha that he is going
to meet to Badey alias Atul Kumar Shukla,
who had called him and he will also come
to Oeal Puliya on his motorcycle to pick
him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that complainant neither
in the said statement nor in the first
information report made allegation of
commission of murder of the deceased by
the accused applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that in the statement
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. first
time on 14.3.2021 , Radha wife of deceased
has stated that deceased had gone to Khagi
Oeal Puliya to meet to Badey alias Atul
Kumar
Shukla.
On
the
said
date,
independent witness Ram Ratan and Veer
Pal Singh have narrated the same version in
the statement recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. The name of the applicant was not
taken by the wife of deceased.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that on the basis of the
call detail reports obtained it was found that
the deceased had talked with Atul Kumar
Shukla on 8.3.2021 at 6.42 p.m. Thereafter
statement of Atul Kumar Shukla alias
Badey was recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. on 24.3.2021, in which he has
neither stated anywhere about the alleged
commission of murder of deceased nor he
has taken the name of applicant regarding
the alleged incident.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that deceased's wife
Radha in her statement recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2021 second
time i.e. after about two months has stated
that there was some money dispute
between
the
accused
applicant
and
deceased and raised suspicion that the
applicant
has
committed
murder
of
deceased. Independent witnesses namely
Udai Veer Singh alias Surpanch and Arpit
Singh who are her father and brother in
1 All. Sumit Kumar @ Angrej Vs. State of U.P.
887
their statements recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2021 have narrated the same
version.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that complainant in the
second statement recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. on 29.5.2021 raised suspicion
on one Ram Dularey and not on the present
applicant. On 27.7.2021 deceased's wife
Radha gave an application to the I/c
Inspector, Police Station Kheri, District
Kheri alleging therein that applicant has
committed murder of the deceased and he
has also confessed his guilt before Rahul
Singh alias Dhirendra Singh (husband of
the younger sister of deceased's wife).
Radha, wife of deceased in the third
statement recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. on 27.7.2021 narrated the same
story of application dated 27.7.2021.
Witness Rahul alias Dhirendra Singh in his
statement recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. on 27.7.2021 has stated that
applicant has confessed his guilt before him
regarding commission of alleged offence.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that accused applicant
was not named in the first information
report and his name surfaced in the
application
dated
27.7.2021
of
the
deceased's wife and the statement of her
brother-in-law
namely
Rahul
alias
Dhirendra Singh recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. on 27.7.2021.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that neither the applicant
was named nor any suspicion was raised
against him in the first information report
as well as in the statements of complainant
and first statement of deceased's wife
Radha recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C
and first time his name was dragged in
the present case through second statement
of deceased's wife Radha only on the basis
of suspicion on 5.5.2021. i.e. after about
two months of the alleged incident. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no
motive to commit the crime in question and
the alleged motive which has been assigned
to the applicant to commit the crime in
question is totally false and fabricated one,
because no dispute had arisen between the
applicant and deceased at any point of time,
during life time of deceased. There are
contradictions in the statements of the
deceased's wife Radha, complainant and
witnesses recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C.
which
create
doubt
on
the
allegations levelled against the accused
applicant.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that applicant has falsely
been implicated in the present case. The
post-mortem report of the deceased does
not confirm the incident. As per statements
of the aforesaid witnesses recorded under
Section 161, there is no eye witness to the
above incident. He further submits that the
whole prosecution story is false and
concocted.

13. The submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that it is a case
based on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances
appearing
against
the
applicant are no more than his extra judicial
confession. The applicant has neither been
arrested from the alleged spot nor recovery
of any incriminating evidence has been
made by the police from the applicant or at
his pointing out. The applicant has been
roped in by the police on the basis of
statement of Radha wife of the deceased
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on third
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
time on 27.7.2021 and also the statement of
brother in law of Radha namely Rahul alias
Dhirendra Singh recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. on 27.7.2021. The recovery
memo is totally false. It is also argued that
there is no incriminating evidence available
on record about the applicant's involvement
in the commission of alleged offence. He
further submits that no offence under
Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. is made out
against the accused applicant.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishna
Tukaram Angre
Vs.
The
State
of
Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 1704
of 2017. In the said decision, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was pleased to observe that
case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial
evidence and the accused has been in custody
for fifteen months.

15. The present case is being a case of
the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled
law that where there is no direct evidence
against the accused and the prosecution rests
its case on circumstantial evidence; the
inference of guilt can be justified only when
all the incriminating facts and circumstances
are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused. In other words,
there must be chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused. All the links
in the chain of circumstances must be
complete and should be proved through
cogent evidence. In the present case there is
no continuing chain of evidence.

16. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the applicant have also been
placed
forth before
the
Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
applicant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is not having any
criminal history and he is in jail since
30.7.2021 and that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

17. Learned A.G.A. opposed the
prayer for bail.

18. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case,
including the nature of evidence, the period
of
detention
already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial
and also the absence of any convincing
material to indicate the possibility of
tampering with the evidence as also the
charge has been framed against applicant,
but prosecution has not produced any
single witness against applicant till today,
in particular, the fact that the case rests on
circumstantial evidence, the fact that the
evidence against the applicant is one of
extra judicial confession alone with no
independent evidence to prima facie
indicate his complicity and in view of the
larger mandate of the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and
another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this
1 All. Shankar Varik alias Vikram Vs. Union of India
889
Court is of the view that the applicant may
be enlarged on bail.

19. The prayer for bail is granted. The
application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant Sumit Kumar
alias Angrej involved in Case Crime No.
98 of 2021 Under sections 302 and 201
I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Kheri
be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned on the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant will not make any
attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself
deems it fit to do so in the interest of
justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in
any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the
liberty of bail during trial, 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.

(6) The applicant shall remain present,
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. 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.

(7) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

21. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

22. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------

(2022)01ILR A889
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 12805 of 2021

Shankar Varik alias Vikram ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India ...Opp. Party