Allowed

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018BAIL/37454/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court allowed bail to Mukesh, an accused in a murder case involving firearm assault. The single judge found it a fit case for bail due to the accused's assigned role of 'catching hold' being prima facie unbelievable in an injury-causing scenario and the plea of parity with admitted co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Mukesh be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37454 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Kumar Singh,Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Mukesh in connection with Case Crime No. 252 of 2010, under Section 147,148,149,307,302/34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura.

¶6

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that amongst a total of eight assailants, who are said to have participated in the occurrence on 19.04.2010 at 5.00 in the evening, and, that led to the murder of one Param, the applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold, whereas the role of shooting has been assigned to Dharmendra S/o Vikram, Kumpi @ Kunvarpal, Kalua and Vijay Pal. The role of catching hold has also been assigned to Nema, Dharmendra s/o Radhe and Jagan. It is argued that the applicant has not been assigned the role of causing injury, and, the prosecution case of assault by four persons using fire arms, while the applicant is said to have caught hold of the victim is prima facie unbelievable and unlikely. It is pointed out that identically circumstanced co-accused, who have been assigned the role of catching

¶8

hold, that is to say, Nem Singh has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 24275 of 2010 and another similarly circumstanced co-accused, Jagan has been admitted to the concession of bail vide order dated 08.09.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 24914 of 2010. It is further said that Kunwarpal @ Kumpi, who has been assigned the role of shooting has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 24299 of 2011. The said orders are all on record and have been perused.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the role assigned is one of catching hold, in an assault by fire arms which is prima facie unlikely, besides the plea of parity, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Mukesh involved in Case Crime No. 252 of 2010, under Section 147,148,149,307,302/34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

¶13

concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

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

¶18

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.12.2018 BKM/-

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranpal Vs State of U.P.

Iltaf @ Gunga Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kalicharan Vs State of U.P.

Kunwar Pratap Singh Kushwaha @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.