Allowed

Gaurav Batham and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019BAIL/2825/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail applications for two accused charged with murder and abduction, noting lack of criminal history and that the deceased likely died in an accident. Applicants granted bail with personal bonds and sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each subject to five conditions including attending trial and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2825 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Batham And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, 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 23.1.2019.

¶7

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

¶8

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 24.2.2015(about four months of the incident) against Gaurav Batham, Akash Yadav and two unknown persons on the basis of an application alleging that Krishna Kumar was abducted and killed by them. After investigation, Final Report was submitted. Protest petition was filed and after recording statements that was treated as a compliant and was dismissed. Thereafter revision was filed which was allowed and file was remanded back. Later on, vide order dated 30.3.2018, Gaurav Batham and Akash Yadav were summoned for trial under sections 364, 302/34 IPC.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are languishing in jail since 21.12.2018(more than one month) having no criminal history. They have been falsely implicated. There is no legal evidence against the applicants. Deceased met with an accident and injuries were sustained by him in that accident. He was admitted in the hospital by Lallu Singh and few others who reached on the spot hearing shrieks on 27.102014. Hence it is a clear case that deceased died due to accident only. Accused were summoned by the Court without giving opportunity of hearing and cross-examining witnesses. In case applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicants. He admitted that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicants Gaurav Batham and Akash Yadav involved in Case Crime No.1120 of 2015, under Section 364, 302/34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

4.The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶17

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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.1.2019

¶20

P.P.

Gaurav Batham and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Batham and Another 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

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Bhartiya Vs State of U.P.

Hetam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gauri Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P.