Allowed

Brij Mohan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018BAIL/48038/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48038 of 2018, Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi J. allowed bail for Brij Mohan accused under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC for a murder case, finding it a fit case given the late recording of critical witness statement and co-accused already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48038 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Brij Mohan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant to enlarge the applicant on bail in Crime No. 243 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Kurawali, District - Mainpuri.

¶7

As per prosecution version, Rizwan (deceased), son of the informant Lalchi Khan was missing from the intervening night of 23-24.04.2018. Later on 25.04.2018, his dead body was recovered. During investigation the name of applicant came into light.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has been made accused in this case on the basis of statement of witness Mahboob Khan. There is no other evidence against the applicant. He further contended that co-accused Sachin, Kaptan Singh, Vijay Pratap and Rajiv Kumar have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 27.09.2018, 20.11.2018, 28.11.2018 and 26.10.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 36357 of 2018 (Sachin vs. State of U.P.), 42875 of 2018 (Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P.), 42730 of 2018 (Vijay Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P.), 40251 of 2018 (Rajiv Kumar vs. State of U.P.). Applicant has no criminal antecedent.

¶9

The name of applicant has surfaced only on the basis of statement of witness Mahboob Khan and confessional statement of applicant before the police. Mehboob Khan is resident of same village as that of the informant. Applicant is not named in F.I.R. The statement of Mehboob Khan was recorded by Investigating Officer on 30.04.2018, after 7 days of the occurence. Co-accused hav already been enlarged on bail, as mentioned above.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and

¶11

admitted the fact that applicant and other co-accused are not the named accused in this case.

¶12

Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

In view of above, the prayer so made is accepted and accordingly, the instant application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant - Brij Mohan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 sweta

Brij Mohan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Mohan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramji Gupta and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arbind Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Maurya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jameel Vs State of U.P.