Allowed

Anil Sahu @ Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2019BAIL/2583/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant charged with murder and giving false evidence in a delayed and allegedly concocted case. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits, imposing standard conditions for cooperation and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in equal amount, subject to conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Anil Sahu @ Monu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2583 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Sahu @ Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yashpal Yadav,Lalji Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated in highly belated FIR lodged upon deliberations after two days of incident; that first informant made an application to P.S. Maharajpur on 11.06.2018 stating that at 11:00 p.m. upon information he reached and found dead body of his brother Dinesh on way from GT road to Maholi; that after postmortem of dead body of deceased cause of death was found to be hanging; that on 13.06.2018, first informant lodged FIR with concocted story stating that deceased was coming home from Bombay and when he got down at Kanpur Central Railway Station, applicant, the cousin brother of his wife after calling him at Sarojini Hospital Navbasta taken him for dropping at his home, and on way, strangulated him with rope, and hidden his dead body at Maholi turn by the side of GT road; that in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. first informant developed a new story that applicant who is cousin brother of Smt. Surekha, wife of deceased was having illicit relationship with Smt. Surekha (his cousin sister), and was seen in compromising position by wife of first informant, and due to above reason he eliminated Dinesh in connivance with his wife Surekha as he was a hurdle in their illicit relationship; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false, incorrect and highly improbable, and there is no iota of evidence regarding alleged illicit relationship between applicant and his cousin sister Smt. Surekha; that recovery of a piece of rope from applicant on 14.06.2018, has been falsely planted of which there is no independent witness and it is not a case of strangulation; that FIR has been lodged with inordinate delay and concocted story is made to deprive Smt. Surekha, cousin sister of applicant from right of inheritance in properties of Dinesh as well as to usurp his property by first informant, his brother; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody

¶7

since 15.06.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant Anil Sahu @ Monu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2018 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Maharajpur District Kanpur 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.1.2019 M. ARIF

Anil Sahu @ Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sahu @ Monu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalu Sonkar Alias Shitendra Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Jaivinder Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhim Sharma Vs State of U.P.