Allowed

Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019BAIL/13282/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench bail application allowed for applicant charged with alleged assault resulting in death under IPC 304. Court considered delay in FIR registration, absence of independent witness, and applicant's clean record as grounds for release on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions of not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing on dates fixed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13282 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Nath Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Veer Tripathi,Irfanul Huda,Sri Viresh Mishra, Senior Counsel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,F.A. Alvi,Irfanul

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prakash Veer Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Irfanul Huda, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Mayank Mishra, brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 4.1.1028 against three accused persons, namely Ravindra Kumar @ Pappu, Jitendra Nath and Gaurav @ Golu alleging that on 1.1.2018 they assaulted Ved Prakash, Om Prakash and Nikki Mishra iron pipe. Om Prakash received injuries on head, resultantly died. Injuries received by the injured are not dangerous to life.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. F.I.R. was lodged after three days of incident without explaining any delay. There was no intention or knowledge to kill the deceased. There are general allegations against all accused persons. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. Offence under Section 304 IPC is not made out against the applicant. After thought, the false story was developed with legal consultation due to previous enmity. He is languishing in jail since 22.2.2018 (more than ten and half months) having no criminal history 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 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that weapon iron pipe was recovered on the pointing out of applicant but no blood stained was found. Other co-accused are absconding till date.

¶9

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 applicant has no criminal history.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶12

Let applicant Jitendra Nath Mishra involved in Case Crime No. 04 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

It is expected from the court concerned to decide the case expeditiously according to section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.1.2019

¶21

A. Singh

Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Nath Mishra 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

Bhajju @ Parmeshwari Dayal Vs State of U.P.

Yashpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amit Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bhawna @ Bhanu Vs State of U.P.