Allowed

Rishi Kumar @ Rishipal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2018BAIL/5375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant in murder case (IPP 302) where FIR omitted his name. Ruled it a fit case for bail despite circumstantial evidence and lack of co-accused corroboration, considering detention period.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence or commit further crimes.

Rishi Kumar @ Rishipal Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5375 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rishi Kumar @ Rishipal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sameer Garg,Samir Kumar Garg

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.405 of 2017 under sections 302, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Kakod, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused is not named in the FIR. His name has been taken by the first informant on the next day when statement was given in which he has stated that the wife of the deceased had illicit relation with Rishi Kumar (maternal brother of the deceased). Because of this illicit relationship, it is alleged that this occurrence has been given effect by the accused Rishi Kumar accompanied with another accused. It is also stated that the brick which has been alleged to have been used in commission of this offence is also alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the present accused from an open place.The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 19.8.2017. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

Sri Sameer Kumar Garg has vehemently opposed the bail and has stated that there is no motive to falsely implicate the present accused.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but has not controverted the aforesaid facts. It is also stated by him that in confessional statement made by Smt. Pooja, she has confessed that she had illicit relation with the accused-applicant and because of which the deceased was killed by Rishi Kumar.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

In the light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the fact that it

¶11

is a case of circumstantial evidence and only on the basis of the confessional statement of the wife of the deceased and a brick which is alleged to be weapon of offence used in the commission of this crime, which is recovered from open space and taking into consideration the nature of offence, quantum of punishment and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Rishi Kumar @ Rishipal involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.3.2018 AU

Rishi Kumar @ Rishipal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Kumar @ Rishipal 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

Harish Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Tan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hausala Kewat Vs State of Up and Another

Lalu @Krishna Gopal Vs State of Up Another

Imtiyaz and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Virendra and another Vs State of U.P. and another