Allowed

Satayendra @ Kalu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2018BAIL/20202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case where his name was disclosed by a co-accused. Finding the case fit for bail considering custody duration and lack of independent evidence, the court ordered release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Satayendra @ Kalu released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to satisfaction of the court.

Satayendra @ Kalu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20202 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Satayendra @ Kalu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Dhar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against two accused persons, namely Pankaj Tomar and Kanchhaya alleging that on 12.8.2016 they looted and killed Sonu (driver of Tata-407 bearing No. UP80Q9196. During investigation, accused Bani Singh was arrested by the police, one mobile of deceased was recovered from his possession and the name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Bani Singh.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Bani Singh has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.3.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6932 of 2017, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness and eye witness account against the applicant. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The name of applicant was disclosed by co-accused Bani Singh in his statement. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 10.2.2017 (near about one year and four months) criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Satayendra @ Kalu involved in Case Crime No. 468 of 2016, under Sections 302, 404, 201 IPC, Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

5.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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 29.5.2018 A. Singh

Satayendra @ Kalu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satayendra @ Kalu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Vs State of U.P.

Sukhveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunder Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Vs State of U.P.