Allowed

Sanjeev v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018BAIL/2125/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under sections 324, 504, 506, and 304 IPC, the single judge allowed the bail prayer. The court noted the applicant had no criminal history, the cause of death was not ascertained, and custody had exceeded a year, ruling it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the bail application. Directed release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to prevent tampering and intimidation.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2125 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

According to prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely Smt. Kanti Devi, Rajesh and Sanjeev alleging that on 18.9.2017 they assaulted Pramod Kumar. Rajesh was catching hold of Pramod Kumar and Sanjeev had assaulted by spade.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail sine 3.10.2017 (more than one year and one month); having no criminal history; F.I.R. was lodged under Section 324 and 342 I.P.C.; after death it was converted under Section 304 I.P.C.. He further submitted that according to injury report, injury was found on the left hand near elbow and according to postmortem report cause of death was not ascertained and viscera was preserved, hence it is not clear how the death of the deceased was caused; the applicant was not responsible for cause of death; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity; there is no independent witness and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no possibility of case being heard in near future.

¶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 the applicant Sanjeev involved in Case Crime No. 984 of 2017, under Section 324, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station-

¶12

Badaut, District-Baghpat 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 26.11.2018 OP

Sanjeev v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Veerpal Vs State of U.P.

Vishram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Beni Ram Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar @ Babali Shivhare Vs State of U.P.

Fula Devi Vs State of U.P.