Allowed

Satveer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019BAIL/49617/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 364, 302, and 201 IPC, the Court held the applicant to be a fit case for bail. He was directed to release on a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions of appearing in trial and not tampering with evidence or indulging in unlawful activities.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49617 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Satveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mehrotra,Srijan Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R. lodged with inordinate delay of over one month from the date when son of first informant was went missing; that as per averments made in F.I.R. dated 29.5.2017 Shravan, 38 years old son of first informant was missing since 28.4.2017 with his mobile numbers responding switched off and regarding his missing a missing report was made by him at Police Station on 26.5.2017 and 2-3 days back Chandra Pal and Balraj of his village told him that on 29.4.2017 when they were coming back to village from Delhi they seen Shravan with co-accused Sushil Yadav at about 9:30-10:00 a.m. near Sani Mandir Chhajarasi so he must enquire from Sushil Yadav and when he approached Sushil Yadav he did not provide any information so he believes that Sushil Yadav has kidnapped his son with his associates and has caused his death; that same day after arresting of Sushil Yadav his confessional statement is alleged to have been recorded wherein he has stated that Nitu, the wife of his brother-in-law had re-married with Shravan and due to property dispute he committed murder of Shravan with the help of applicant; that upon above statement of co-accused, applicant was also arrested and his confessional statement was recorded in police custody; that statement of co-accused Sushil Yadav is not binding on applicant and confessional statement of applicant in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that applicant had no concern with Sushil Yadav and applicant had no motive to cause death of Shravan; that if at all co-accused Sushil Yadav having motive against deceased and the case of applicant is distinguishable from Sushil Yadav; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 29.5.2017.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of

¶9

punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Satveer be released on bail in Case Crime No.541 of 2017, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Phase-II, District Gautam Budh Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Kpy

Satveer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satveer 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

Jaivinder Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhim Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Maharaj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Driver Pooran Singh Vs State of U.P.