Allowed

Bhuri Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2018BAIL/7717/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to the accused involved in a murder and attempted murder charge. Considering the accused's specific role, co-accused bail status, and past acquittals in serious cases, the court held it fit to grant bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 17 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7717 of 2018

¶2

Applicant :- Bhuri Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶4

This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶5

As per FIR, the prosecution's case is that on 26.7.2015 at about 8:30 am, first informant Suresh, his father- Shyam Singh and his brother Mahesh were going towards their field loading manure in tractor with Nilesh, Poonam, Pooja and Priti. As soon as they reached near field of Dr. Hari Singh, the accused Bhoori Singh (accused-applicant) along with seven co-accused, all of a sudden ambushed upon them. They were armed with rifles and pistol in their hands. Bhoori exhorted the co-accused that the complainant side should be killed and thereafter all of them started indiscriminate firing upon the complainant side, in which Shyam Singh (deceased) died on the spot while Mahesh, Nilesh, Poonam and Pooja got injuries.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the present accused-applicant has been assigned the role of only exhortation in the FIR. The role of causing fire arm injury upon the deceased- Shym Singh, is assigned to Pappi by an injured witness Mahesh. In post-mortem report, only one fire arm injury is present on the body of the deceased by which, he died. The other three co-accused namely, Jagdeesh, Manoj and Ravendra (Vijay Kumar) have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court; the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2017. He has criminal history of eleven cases, which have been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant in the affidavit. In three cases of serious nature out of eleven, he has been acquitted. Some cases are of Gundas Act, which may not be treated offence of serious nature. If he is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty.

¶7

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Sri I.K. Chaturvedi had filed counter affidavit and has vehemently opposed the bail of the present accused stating that he is hardened criminal having criminal history of eleven cases. He

¶8

was absconding for two and half years and only after having seen that the co-accused had been acquitted and when processes u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were issued against him, he has surrendered himself. If he is released on bail, he would try to temper with the evidence of this case. There are four injured, who have also received gun shot injuries, hence, his bail should be refused.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of bail, but has not controverted the aforesaid fact.

¶10

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

¶11

In view of above arguments, looking to the fact that three coaccused have been granted bail and the role of making fire arm upon the deceased is assigned to accused-Pappi by one of the injured witness, which resulted in causing death of the deceased; as regards criminal history of the accused, in most serious offences out of eleven, he has been acquitted by the courts, taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Bhuri Singh 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 :- 21.3.2018 A.P. Pandey

Bhuri Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuri Singh 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

Jitendra Alias Bhure and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 1 Ors.

Hasrat and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Vidhyawati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dhirendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narain Das Vs State of U.P.