Allowed

Leeley v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018BAIL/43064/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43064 of 2018, the Single Judge granted bail to the applicant, Leeley, accused of murder and destroying evidence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, subject to personal bond, two sureties, and compliance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail via personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non-tampering with evidence, and no unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43064 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Leeley Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kumar Pandey,Anand Ji Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and Vakalatnama filed by Sri Santosh Tripathi and Smt. Mandvi Tripathi, Advocates on behalf of first informant, are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Anand Ji Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Mandvi Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R. which has been lodged by father of deceased upon information received from Ashok; that as per averments made in F.I.R., named accused Yogesh fetched deceased and shot him dead and thrown his body in canal (Bumba); that in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. first informant has stated that Ashok had informed him that he had seen Yogesh, applicant Leeley and deceased together but Leeley has not been named in F.I.R.; that confessional statement of co-accused Yogesh has been recorded to the effect that deceased was having bad eye on his wife due to which he hatched a conspiracy with applicant and in his presence shot Kapil dead and then his body was thrown by them in canal; that applicant had no motive to cause death of deceased and even according to confessional statement of co-accused, he has been assigned only with the role of making the evidence disappear under Section 201 I.P.C.; that confessional statement of co-accused is not binding upon applicant; that the case of applicant is distinguishable from coaccused Yogesh; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 30.7.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Leeley be released on bail in Case Crime No.326 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Kithore, District Meerut, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 Kpy

Leeley v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leeley 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

Chhotey Lal Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Sarafat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramashre Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P.