The High Court, Allahabad assigned to Bail Application No. 47839 of 2019 considering a challenge to arrest in a murder case. The court observed delays in incriminating witnesses naming the applicant and noted lack of recovery evidence. It held the case fit for bail.
Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47839 of 2019
Applicant :- Madan Kumar Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the information was lodged by one Sanjay Goswami, the village pradhan, with regard to the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was found lying near Bairagiya Nala. Inquest and postmortem were conducted as unknown. The informant Sanjay Goswami in his first statement has not disclosed the name of the applicant. Yogesh Yadav, the owner of Krishna Dhaba, has also not disclosed the name of the applicant in his first statement. Thereafter in his second statement, the informant Sanjay Goswami has stated that he had heard that the applicant had solemnized his marriage with a lady who belonged to Ghaziabad and has expressed suspicion for committing murder of the deceased by the applicant. Yogesh Yadav, the Dhaba owner, in his second statement has stated that prior to the allege incident the deceased came at his hotel and was asking about the way to the house of the applicant and she further stated that she is the wife of the applicant. This witness has also expressed suspicion for committing murder of the deceased against the applicant. The above two witnesses have disclosed the name of the applicant after 3 and 1/2 months of the alleged incident. It has been further submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstance is not complete. There is no direct evidence against the applicant to commit the alleged offence. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 8.4.2017.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
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.
Let the applicant Madan Kumar Bind involved in Case Crime No.438 of 2017, under Section 302 and 201 IPC Police Station Handia District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 13.11.2019 Gss
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in a case involving Section 302 IPC given the circumstantial evidence and delay in naming.
Whether the chain of evidence is complete against the applicant claiming false implication.
Whether bail can be granted subject to conditions despite the serious nature of the offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Kumar Bind
State of U.P.
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
