Allowed

Brijesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2019BAIL/13118/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to applicant Brijesh in a murder case. Relying on established uniformity, the court granted relief noting the applicant had no criminal history while a co-accused in the same case had already been released on bail, despite the gravity of the charge.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount under satisfaction of the court concerned.

Brijesh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13118 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Brijesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Faneesh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri K.P. Tiwari, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against four persons namely, Raju, Dinesh, Mukesh and Brijesh alleging that on 26.9.2018 they assaulted Mridul Kumar. According to postmortem report, he received ten injuries and died.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that coaccused namely Mukesh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.2.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8873 of 2019, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. On the same day Pradeep, Pramod and Mridul raped daughter of Raju. Pradeep and Pramod fled away and deceased Mridul was caught by the people; while trying to flee away he fell down and died after sustaining injuries. That FIR was lodged as Case Crime No. 255 of 2018 against Pradeep, Pramod, Mridul, Janki Prsad, Veer Pal and Bahori Lal by Smt. Kishan Devi wife of Raju. Later on , these persons went to the house of applicant, abused and assaulted Rasika @ Soni. Thereafter, Rasika @ Soni committed suicide.

¶9

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.9.2018 (more than six months) having no criminal history. He is 'uncle' of Rasika @ Soni and was living separately. He has been falsely implicated. General role is alleged to have been attributed to all the accused though deceased died due to fall only. There is no independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by

¶12

learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let applicant Brijesh involved in Case Crime No.228 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh 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:

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 30.3.2019 A. Singh

Brijesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh 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

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.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P.