Allowed

Anurag v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2019BAIL/13119/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed by the Court in a murder case. The Court held that since a co-accused with a similar role was granted bail, the applicant is entitled to release on personal bond and sureties, noting no criminal history and no misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13119 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anurag Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vimlendu Tripathi,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against four persons namely, Ravi Shankar, Smt. Mithlesh(mother-inlaw), Gaurav Kumar(Dewar) and Anurag(husband) alleging that marriage of Upasana Dwivedi(sister of first informant) was solemnized with Anurag Dwivedi in the year 2003 and they were blessed with two sons namely, Vaibhav aged 13 years and Naman aged 10 years; on 28.3.2018 accused persons have killed the deceased; she was found dead in her matrimonial home with bleeding coming out from her head; bloodstains and broken bangles were found in the house. According to postmortem report, deceased received four lacerated wounds, three abrasions and one contusion caused by hard and blunt object. Specific role of assault was assigned to co-accused Ravi Shankar and iron rod and blood stained bora (sack) were recovered from the pointing out of co-accused Ravi Shankar.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Smt. Mithilesh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34155 of 2018, 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 20.4.2018 (near about one year) having no criminal history. Applicant is the husband and has been falsely implicated. Specific role has been assigned to co-accused Ravi Shankar @ Girija Shankar and Gaurav. The case of applicant is distinguishable from father-in-law and Gaurav. Gaurav was assigned role of catching hold. The applicant had no concern with the incident. There is neither eye witness account nor any independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and 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.

¶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 Anurag involved in Case Crime No.109 of 2018, under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Taalgram, District Kannauj 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:

¶11

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

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 30.3.2019 A. Singh

Anurag v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag 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.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.