Dismissed

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2019BAIL/42780/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Single Judge heard the bail application filed by Ajay in a case involving a burn injury death. The applicant claimed false implication and alibi, while the opposing counsel argued he was an active culprit. The court rejected the bail application without commenting on the merits, citing the severity of punishment and complicity.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant is to remain in custody.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42780 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Murari Upadhyay,Vishal Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Shyam Murari Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated; that applicant is nephew of deceased; that as per averments made in the FIR lodged on 15.10.2016 by Shailendra, his cousin brothers Arvind, Ajay, Pranchal and Arpnesh sons of Dinesh were having enmity on account of property dispute with regard to partition of ancestral property and had committed incidents with his father Satish in past and on 14.10.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. when his father was sitting over an Activa near Chakki and talking with labour, suddenly applicant and his brothers arrived to his father, coaccused Arvind poured petrol over his father and Ajay put him on fire with matchstick from matchbox and when applicant, who was standing on nearby medical store reached to extinguish fire, accused persons fled away and the father of the first informant was taken to hospital, who subsequently died on 21.10.2016; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that applicant was not at all present at the time of incident rather he was in Evergreen Gym from 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., which is clear from CCTV footage, copies of the photographs from CCTV footage are at Annexure-17 to the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application; that applicant had no motive to cause death of his Chacha, Satish; that applicant upon getting information of sustaining burn injuries to his Chacha immediately rushed to the spot; that the applicant is a practicing lawyer and cannot do such an act; that co-accused Pranchal and Arpnesh have been granted bail; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since

¶7

31.1.2017.

¶8

Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that applicant is one of the real culprit apart from coaccused Arvind; that active role has been played by the applicant by putting father of first informant on fire through matchstick from matchbox upon pouring of petrol on him by his brother Arvind in preplanned manner; that the deceased in his dying declaration has fully corroborated the FIR version; that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant; that co-accused Pranchal and Arpnesh were not assigned with any active role of either pouring petrol or of putting deceased on fire and applicant may not seek parity with them; that brutal murder of Chacha has been committed by applicant, who claims himself to be a practicing lawyer; that the applicant has flouted law and could be taken into custody after issuance of proceedings under Sections 82/83, Cr.P.C. against him; that false plea of alibi taken by the applicant is to be considered by the trial court at the time of final disposal on the basis of evidence on record; that the trial is likely to be concluded in near future and applicant, if released on bail, shall delay and defraud the fair disposal of trial.

¶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 do not find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

The bail application of applicant Ajay in Case Crime No.1195 of 2016, S.T. No.142/2017, under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad is rejected accordingly.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.2.2019 T. Sinha

Ajay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Poonam Jha Vs State of U.P.

Umakant @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Indal Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash @ Lalla Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P.