In this second bail application, the court rejected the plea due to lack of new grounds and the gravity of the alleged offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, noting no development since the prior rejection.
Bail application rejected.
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. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25682 of 2017
Applicant :- Brijmohan @ Tinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Shukla,Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2015, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 14.2.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 5273 of 2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 4.1.2019 Kuldeep
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a second application for Case Crime No. 16 of 2015.
Brijmohan @ Tinku
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
