Allowed

Shiv Kumar @ Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2018BAIL/9101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under section 302 IPC, the High Court found the case to be a fit case for bail. The applicant was released on bail conditioned against tampering with evidence, committing new crimes, and complying with trial procedures.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and committing further crimes.

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

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9101 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar @ Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra has filed a supplementary affidavit along with his Parcha, which are taken on record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.200 of 2017 under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kharkhauda, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per FIR, the prosecution case is that in the evening of 10.4.2017 at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased Anuj had gone somewhere by motorcycle who had talked on phone to the first informant that he was sitting somewhere and would return after 15-20 minutes but he did not return. Thereafter, the daughter of the first informant tried to contact him on phone but the same was not picked up. On the next day, near tube-well of Gani the dead body of Anuj was recovered and near that place a brick was also found, soaked with blood by which the deceased was killed.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no direct evidence against the present accused. The only strong piece of evidence collected by the police is the statement of Babu, who was the 'Mama' of the deceased. His evidence has been gone through. In the said evidence he has simply stated that he had heard some people fighting each other and an scream of a lady on 10.4.2017. When he was passing by the way, the body of the deceased was found lying there. It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 13.4.2017. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.

¶10

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

¶11

In the light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the fact of the case 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 Shiv Kumar @ Sharma 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 :- 14.3.2018 AU

Shiv Kumar @ Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar @ Sharma 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

Mukeem Ali Vs State of U.P.

Narad Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Alias Ajju Vs State of U.P.

Bauwa Alias Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Jai Karan Vs State of U.P.

Haidar Ali Vs State of U.P.