Allowed

Sanjay @ Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018BAIL/45754/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a bail application in a murder case arising from a land dispute. The court noted the deceased sustained a single head injury, no specific role was assigned to the applicant, and there were indications of enmity prompting the link to Sections 147, 302, 323, 352, and 34 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was granted bail through the furnishing of a personal bond and two reliable sureties of equivalent amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45754 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay @ Sanju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the applicant Sanjay @ Sanju who is involved in Case Crime No. 176 of 2018, under Sections 147, 302, 323, 352, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Jhagaha, District-Gorakhpur.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 30.6.2018 at about 12:30 PM, Ram Sagar father of accused/applicant Sanjay @ Sanju was tresspassing on the land belonging to informant Brijlal Yadav. On objection being raised by Chandrajeet Yadav father of the informant, applicant Sanjay @ Sanju alongwith co-accused Satyanarain, Ramsagar, Sharda Devi, Gayatri Devi, Aarti Devi and Rajkumari Devi having armed with blunt object i.e. lathi, danda and rod came on the spot and assaulted on Chandrajeet Yadav, due to which, he sustained injuries and later on died. Informant Brijlal Yadav, Lakshman and Kamlesh son of informant came to rescue for Chandrajeet Yadav, accused assaulted on them also.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that deceased Chandrajeet Yadav have sustained only three injuries, out of which, two injuries are on the non vital part of the body and single injury is on the temporal bone of the head of the deceased. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. Informant Brijlal Yadav, Lakshman and Kamlesh son of informant have sustained no injuries and they have not been medically examined. Applicant is in custody since 3.7.2018.

¶9

Learned A.G.A., has opposed the prayer for bail, however, admitted this fact that there is no visible injury to the informant Brijlal Yadav, Lakshman and Kamlesh son of informant.

¶10

From perusal of the FIR, it reveals that there is dispute about land. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is single injury to the deceased Chandrajeet Yadav on the vital part.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Let the applicant- Sanjay @ Sanju, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./Magistrate, concerned.

¶12

Application stands allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 Jaswant

Sanjay @ Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Sanju 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

Tabbasum Begum and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siyaram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaina Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siddharth Paliwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janki Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ujagir Vs State of U.P.