This single-judge court allowed the bail application of an applicant accused in a murder case. The court held that despite no direct evidence against the applicant, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses and severity of the charge warranted bail.
Applicant Julphekar released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38244 of 2018
Applicant :- Julphekar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Sheo Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the informant which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case, fact is that the applicant happens to be real brother of the deceased Imran and he has been falsely roped in by the police in this case on account of suspicion alone. It is a case of no evidence, neither direct nor circumstantial against the applicant. At the most, role of conspiracy is alleged to have been made against the applicant, that to is not supported by any cogent evidence on record.
Assuming it to be that any conspiracy was hatched by the applicant even then statement of the witnesses and particularly statement of Sheeba Khan, wife of the deceased is indicative of fact that role of the applicant can be pegged to that of conspiracy only and it cannot travel beyond that. However, the main role of causing murder has been assigned to the accused Tirath Sahani @ Mudrika.
Learned counsel for the applicant has engaged attention of this Court to the various statement of the prosecution witnesses and claimed that absolutely, it is a case of no evidence against the applicant. The applicant does not bear any
criminal history and is languishing in jail since 19.05.2018.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he has submitted that it is correct that there is no direct evidence against the applicant but the applicant is very clever offender and he hatched conspiracy with other co-accused in commission of the crime which cannot be viewed in leniency.
Learned counsel for the informant has also submitted that circumstances of the case conclusively exposed claim of the applicant that he was not involved in the commission of the crime, whereas, fact is that he is brother of the deceased Imran.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Julphekar involved in Case Crime No.163 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 120 B I.P.C., Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 10.10.2018
rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to release on bail given the allegations of conspiracy in a murder case.
Whether reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses justifies the grant of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Julphekar
State Of U.P.
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
