Allowed

Ravindra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2019BAIL/11651/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application in a murder case. The applicant was summoned as an additional accused under CrPC Section 319. The court considered the nature of allegations, custody period, and lack of independent evidence against the applicant, finding it a fit case for bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11651 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sikandar B. Kochar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons and two unknown persons including the the applicant alleging that on 1.9.2017 at 5.30 p.m. they killed Rahul. After investigation, final report was submitted against all accused persons and name of four accused persons was surfaced. One application moved by the complainant, vide order dated 14.8.2018 accused Premshankar, Ravindra, Adesh and Dharmshwarup wer summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the court concerned for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, applicant was exonerated and final report was submitted. Statement of P.W.1 Vedprakash was recorded. Applicant and other accused persons were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without giving opportunity of hearing and cross-examination. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. Statement of Pushpa (wife of co-accused Rahul) was recorded (annexed at page 82 of bail application), she stated that she loved deceased before her marriage and made physical relation; she was pregnant. She also stated that this fact come to knowledge of her husband, he killed deceased with the help of other accused. There is no legal evidence and independent witness against the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 6.2.2019 (near about two months) criminal history of three cases has been properly explained and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that criminal history has been properly explained and applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the main accused who has killed the deceased by shot fire. Motive is against the applicant. Police has wrongly exonerated the name of applicant without evidence. One Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 26514 of 2017 was filed by complainant before this Court, vide order dated 29.11.2017, this Court has directed complainant to approach the State Government. It is further submitted that at the time of granting bail of coaccused Dharma Swaroop and Prem Shankar, the case of Ravindra was distinguished from the case of other accused persons as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. Bail of all accused persons argued by same counsel as Sri Sikandar B. Kochar.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Ravindra involved in Session Trial No. 81 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 395 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 IPC, Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.4.2019 A. Singh

Ravindra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra 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

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ashish @ Shobhi Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Prakash @ Chandu Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Nand Kishor Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Firasat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P.