Dismissed

Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2019BAIL/2858/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2858 of 2019, the Court considered an application for bail under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B IPC and Arms Act. The applicant argued false implication and cited bail granted to co-accused. The Court rejected the application due to the murder charge, cremation of bodies, attributed motive, and the applicant's criminal history under the Gangster Act.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the applicant Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv is rejected.

Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2858 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No. 89 of 2018 (Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kolhui, District Maharajganj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the FIR dated 05.03.2018 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The statements of alleged witnesses Ram Saran Chaurasia and Nand Kishore are not reliable. Similarly, another witness Veer Singh is a close relative of the deceased. No incriminating article was shown recovered from the applicant and that the prosecution version that, Rs. 160/- were recovered from the applicant and he was trying to flee in Nepal, is false and baseless. The applicant was named in the FIR lodged on 16.04.2018 by informant Jitendra, but there is no reliable evidence against the applicant. It was submitted that applicant has lended Rs. 2,50,000/- to deceased, which was not paid by the deceased and when the applicant pressurized his family members, he was falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence against the applicant to prove alleged relationship between applicant and the wife of the deceased. It was submitted that co-accused Rundha Singh, Vishal Sharma and

¶8

Virendra Sonkar have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 01.10.2018, 02.11.2018 and 13.12.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.36880 of 2018, 41623 of 2018 and 43951 of 2018 and that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.03.2018, having no criminal history. It was further submitted that in case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the case relates to murder of two persons and that their dead bodies were burnt. It was argued that applicant used to visit the house of deceased Vijay Singh and due to that reason often quarrel used to take place between Vijay Singh and his wife Sandhiya Singh. It was submitted that applicant is main accused and motive has also been attributed to the applicant. It was argued that after committing murder of both the deceased persons, their dead bodies were burnt by petrol. There was criminal history of one case under Gangster Act against the applicant. It was submitted that in view of specific motive attributed to the applicant and criminal history of applicant, applicant cannot be claimed parity with the above stated coaccused persons, who have been granted bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all the attending facts and circumstances of case as well as the fact that trial of the case is in progress and two witnesses of the facts have already been examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the bail application of Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv is hereby rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 2.12.2019

¶12

T.S.

Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv 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

Vijay @ Babli Vs State of U.P.

Golu Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Mushtaquim Vs State of U.P.

Nazakat Vs State of U.P.

Tipan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sunder Musahar Vs State of U.P.