Allowed

Dilip Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019BAIL/33031/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court granted bail to the accused in a murder case, noting prima facie grounds due to contradictions in prosecution statements, and directed expedited trial under Section 309 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to specified conditions, including appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Dilip Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33031 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dilip Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2015, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C., P.S. Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 2.3.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 7721 of 2017.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.

¶8

It is contended that subsequent to the rejection of first bail application, the first informant and daughter and son of the deceased have been examined as PW1, PW3 and PW2 during trial and in their statements there are vast contradictions and thus, the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 4.9.2015 with no previous criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram v. State of U.P.; 2018 (3) SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Dilip Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶22

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 Kuldeep

Dilip Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Gupta 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijmohan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Moolveer Alias Monu Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Lalaram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Billoo Vs State of U.P.

Bujharat Vs State of U.P.