Allowed

Arpan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2019BAIL/49002/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the court allowed bail to the applicant accused of murder and conspiracy. Considering the custody period and lack of direct involvement in the shooting, the court held that bail is appropriate, though it imposed standard conditions to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon putting up a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Arpan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49002 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arpan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against three accused namely, Sanjeev Saxena, Rajeev Saxena and Ashok Saxena alleging that on 5.3.2018 at 00:30 A.M. Ashok and Rajeev caught the deceased and Sanjeev Saxena opened fire at deceased Shiv Shankar Saxena(father of first informant) due to enmity of solemnizing love marriage by the first informant. Accused are maternal brothers of wife of first informant. Later on, name of Arpan(applicant) has been disclosed alleging that countrymade pistol was provided by him to other accused. According to postmortem report, one bullet was found in the head of deceased. Case was registered under section 307 IPC. After death, it was converted into section 302 IPC.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant in jail 8.10.2018(more than three months) having no criminal history. He is not named in the FIR. He has been falsely implicated. Specific Role is alleged to have been assigned to Sanjeev Saxena @ Bhondu. Only one gun shot injury was found on the body of deceased and that was caused by Sanjeev Saxena. There is no independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Arpan involved in Case Crime No.99 of 2018, under Section 302 & 120-B IPC, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly 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:

¶12

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

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 10.1.2019 P.P.

Arpan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpan 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

Kanhai Paswan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Pawar Vs State of U.P.

Aasim Vs State of U.P.

Ishraq Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Kitab Singh Vs State of U.P.