Allowed

durgesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019BAIL/2342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Durgesh and Shoharat, who were accused of drowning death involving drowning, citing lack of criminal history, unclear authorship of injuries, and absence of eye-witnesses. Bail was granted on a personal bond with sureties under stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Durgesh and Shoharat released on bail via personal bond and two sureties each subject to conditions against tampering, witness intimidation, and committing similar offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2342 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Durgesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 1.9.2017 against three accused persons, namely, Dilip Kumar, Durgesh and Shohrat alleging that on 31.8.2017 they killed son of the complainant Adarsh Kumar @ Ankur due to previous enmity. According to postmortem report, cause of death was found drowning.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are languishing in jail since 10.10.2017 (one year and five months) having no criminal history. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future. The applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. General role has been assigned against all the accused. It is not clear who is author of head injury. There is no recovery at the pointing out of the applicants. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. F.I.R. was lodged only on the basis of suspicion after one day of the incident without explaining delay. There is no independent witness against the applicants. There is no eye witness account against the applicants and in case they are released on bail, they 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 applicants and admitted that applicants have 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 the applicants Durgesh and Shoharat involved in Case Crime No. 1861 of 2017, under Sections 302 & 201 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Bansi, District-Siddharth Nagar be released on

¶11

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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

4.The applicants 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 applicants 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 :- 25.3.2019 OP

durgesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

durgesh 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

Irshad Quraishi Vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraj Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Prasad Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.