Allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2019BAIL/11006/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha J allowed the second bail application of Dinesh Kumar in a murder case (IPC 302). The Court granted bail on the basis that key prosecution witnesses were declared hostile, though it expressly refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions regarding tampering, threats, and appearance.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11006 of 2019 Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Nadeem, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶4

This second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2016, under Section 302, IPC, Police Station Marhara, District Etah.

¶5

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail applications was rejected on 22.02.2017.

¶6

The contention of the counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is to the effect that subsequent to the rejection of first bail applicant the P.W.-1 has been examined and he has been declared as hostile. Similarly, the P.W.-4 who is the first informant himself has been examined who also declared as hostile, copy of the statement has been annexed on page no.41 of the second bail application. Similarly the P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 have also been examined who too declared as hostile. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2018.

¶7

Sri Mohd. Nadeem, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that all the aforesaid witnesses have been declared hostile.

¶8

Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the that all the aforesaid witnesses have been examined and they have declared hostile, also the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶9

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Dinesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶15

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶17

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.8.2019/VKG

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P.

Rajkaran Vs State of U.P.

Shloki Giri Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Gurjar Vs State of U.P.