Allowed

Buddhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2019BAIL/16372/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant, Buddhan, an accused in a murder case where the victim allegedly set herself on fire. The court found no evidence against him, noted his lack of criminal history, and considered the case fit for bail after two months of custody, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16372 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Buddhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ladlee Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against six accused persons, namely Nagendra, Devendra, Brihspati, Buddhan, Soni and Khushbu alleging that on 22.1.2019 at 11 a.m. they assaulted Ranjita by kicks and fists and poured kerosene and set her on fire, she received injuries, resultantly died. F.I.R. was lodged under Section 302 IPC, after investigation, the case was converted under Section 306 IPC. No dying declaration was recorded.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Deceased has committed suicide herself due to some dispute between accused persons and family members of deceased. Nobody has killed her. The story narrated by the complainant appears to be false fabricate and unnatural. No dying declaration was recorded. Main role was assigned to coaccused Nagendra. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 9.2.2019 (more than two 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 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let applicant Buddhan involved in Case Crime No. 39 of 2019, under Sections 306, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a

¶11

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 :- 22.4.2019 OP

Buddhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddhan 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

Raj Kumar @ Banwa Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alauddin Vs State of U.P.

Nahane @ Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Kumar Alias Munnu Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.