Allowed

Gendi @ Gedan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019BAIL/4657/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail in a murder case where the applicant, not initially named in the FIR, was alleged to have committed the crime based on a delayed affidavit by the complainant. Despite the gravity of the charge, the court noted lack of independent witnesses, no physical evidence, and the applicant's clean criminal record, finding it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties, probation of sentence subject to conditions ensuring no tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or commission of further offen

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4657 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gendi @ Gedan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 5.2.2019.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Lal Prabhakar Singh, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons, namely Jagat Singh, Mauhar, Dhan Singh, Vishan Singh and Kishori alleging that on 1.6.2017 they killed Ramdulari @ Mamata (daughter of complainant). Later on, complainant moved an application alleging that he lodged false F.I.R. and also stated that two persons namely, Gendi @ Gendan and Satya Prakash killed the deceased intoxicant position for making sexual relation.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Satya Prakash has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.2.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6719 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. According to statement of complainant, F.I.R. was false and one affidavit moved by the complainant after five days of incident against applicant and co-accused due to previous enmity. There is no recovery from the possession/pointing out of applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. He is languishing in jail since 30.10.2017 (more than one year and three months) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for

¶11

the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Gendi @ Gedan involved in Case Crime No. 381 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

5.The applicant 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.2.2019 A. Singh

Gendi @ Gedan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gendi @ Gedan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Shukla Vs State of Up and 03 Others

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Lakhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehraj Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Giri Vs State of U.P.

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P.