Allowed

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2019BAIL/2289/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Mukesh, accused in a murder case (IPC 302), allowing his release on personal bond and two sureties after acknowledging his case is identical to a co-accused already granted bail and noting his lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering evidence, intimidating witnesses, or committing similar offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2289 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khare, learned counsel on behalf of first informant is taken on record.

¶6

This case is being taken up as per order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 17.1.2019.

¶7

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

¶8

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely Bhan Singh, Mukesh, Kripal Ahirwar and Ganpat alleging that on 5.7.2018 they assaulted Sri Nathua with lathi-danda, resultantly died due to head injury. According to post-mortem report, he received eight antemortem injuries.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general allegations against all accused persons. It is not clear from the prosecution case, who is the author of head injury due to which he died. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Co-accused Bhan Singh has already been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 10.1.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48562 of 2018(bail order produced during argument, is taken on record), applicant's case is identical to him and he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Co-accused Ganpat has also been granted bail. Two sticks of bamboo and one axe were recovered at the pointing out of coaccused Mukesh. Kripal was armed with axe and Mukesh and Bhan Singh with lathi at the time of incident. There is no independent witness against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 7.7.2018 (more than six months) having no criminal history and in case he

¶10

is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that trial has been started and P.W. 1 has been examined.

¶12

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 and his case is identical to co-accused Bhan Singh who has been granted bail by this Court.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let applicant Mukesh involved in Case Crime No. 114 of 2018, under Sections 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ajnar, District Mahoba 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

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶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 :- 18.1.2019 P.P.

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Phulmati Vs State of U.P.

Sharda Prasad Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Jannati Vs State of U.P.

Ramanand Vs State of U.P.

Nanhe Pal Vs State of U.P.