Allowed

Pavitra Narayan Alias Rinku and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019BAIL/46843/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to two applicants charged under various sections of the IPC for allegedly committing a marpit resulting in death and injury. The court imposed a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions including refraining from evidence tampering and intimidation of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding evidence, witnesses, and court appearances.

Pavitra Narayan Alias Rinku and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46843 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pavitra Narayan Alias Rinku And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. of the alleged incident has been lodged against five persons including the applicants making general allegation for committing marpit with the deceased and injured persons. Initially the F.I.R. was lodged under section 147, 323, 504, 308 and 506 I.P.C. After death of Vishnu Nishad, the injured, the case was converted under section 304 I.P.C. According to post mortem report 3 injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased has been shown shock and coma as a result of ante mortem head and chest injury but it is not specified as to who is the author of these head and chest injuries. It has been further submitted that there is cross version of the alleged incident and from the side of applicants 3 persons have sustained injury and the injury of injured of prosecution side are not fatal to life. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicants or on their pointing out. The applicants have not committed the alleged offence. There is no criminal history of the applicants and they are in jail since 11.7.2019.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in this incident 4 persons have sustained injury including the deceased and the injury of injured Sandeep Nishad is grievous in nature. The applicants and other co accused have committed the alleged offence therefore, they are not entitled for bail.

¶8

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicants Pavitra Narayan Alias Rinku and Pradeep

¶10

Narayan alias Jitendra involved in Case Crime No. 240 of 2019, under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC Police Station Kerakat District Jaunpur be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶11

The applicants will not tamper with the evidences.

¶12

The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and they will cooperate with the trial.

¶13

The applicants will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 19.11.2019 Gss

Pavitra Narayan Alias Rinku and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavitra Narayan Alias Rinku and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maiyadeen Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Umar @ Doodhiya Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Mithla Vs State of U.P.

Prempal Vs State of U.P.

Umashankar Nishad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dhan Devi Vs State of U.P.