Allowed

Dev Narayan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019BAIL/42018/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to an applicant charged with murder. The court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail via personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions; direction to trial court for expedited trial.

Dev Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42018 of 2018 Applicant :- Dev Narayan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Counter affidavit has been filed by the State is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Yogeshwar Rai, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶5

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.192 of 2017, under Sections 302/34, IPC, Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur.

¶6

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR three persons are assigned general role of firing on the deceased, however, as per the postmortem report of the deceased there is only one entry wound and one exit wound i.e. only single gun sought injury was found. It has been further contended that as after the postmortem it was found that there is only one gun sought injury, the wife of the deceased has assigned the role of firing to the applicant, after three days of the alleged incident; the applicant is in jail since 27.11.2017 with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

Let the applicant Dev Narayan Singh 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

However, it is 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.

¶18

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. Order Date :- 10.7.2019 VKG

Dev Narayan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Narayan Singh 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

Vindhyachal Musahar Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Balakram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu@Vipin Vs State of U.P.