This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving murder. The court observed that the applicant has no criminal history and found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits of the case.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation with trial and non-interference with evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2382 of 2019
Applicant :- Bisan @ Bijendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Sri Kapil Tyagi and Syed Ali Imam filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of first informant/complainant which are taken on record.
Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity on account of property dispute as well as being brother of co-accused Sundar; that as per averments made in FIR, applicant along with his brothers and father entered the house of uncle of first informant at about 2-3 p.m. on 28.09.2018 and after committing Torh-Phorh and having scuffle with Lakhan, some of them reached at room where Deepak was lying, and after breaking door and having a scuffle, shot him in abdomen resulting in his death; that in statement of eye witness Lakhan, the brother of deceased and Suman, the wife of deceased, role of causing fatal firearm injury to deceased has been assigned to coaccused Sundar; that it is wrong to say that applicant entered the house of deceased or had a scuffle with Lakhan or deceased; that case of applicant is distinguishable from Sundar; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 29.09.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment , as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Bisan @ Bijendra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 410 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 302, 427, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Badlapur District Gautam Budh Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 18.1.2019 M. ARIF
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a murder case punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the applicant can be granted bail despite alleged enmity and family connection with co-accused.
Bisan @ Bijendra
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
