Allowed

Arjun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2019BAIL/13107/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, Arjun, charged under Section 302 IPC. Relying on the granting of bail to a co-accused and the applicant's lack of criminal history, the Court viewed that he made out a case for bail without expressing opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13107 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 31.3.2017 against four persons namely, Praveen, Arjun, Bablu Pandit and one unknown alleging that on 29.3.2017 they assaulted Rinku with sticks, rod(saria), fists and kicks. He received two head injuries and died on 17.5.2017(after one and half month).

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Praveen has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.2.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31933 of 2017, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.4.2017 (near about two years) having no criminal history. He has been falsely implicated. General role is alleged to have been assigned to all the accused. Nothing has been recovered from the applicant. There is no independent witness. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history and the case of present applicant is identical to co-accused Praveen who has been enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Arjun involved in Case Crime No.223 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station T.P. Nagar, District Meerut 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

¶11

conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

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

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 :- 30.3.2019

¶19

A. Singh

Arjun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dhanesara Vs State of U.P.

Abhimanyu Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Sameer @ Goga Vs State of U.P.

Anurag Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.