Single judge granted bail to the applicant charged with murder and other offences, finding it a fit case without commenting on merits, subject to standard conditions and furnishing bond with sureties.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non-tampering with evidence, and no unlawful activities.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5859 of 2019
Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Babu Mishra,Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Shri Ramesh Pundir, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of first informant, same is taken on record.
Heard Shri R.K. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri D.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR lodged upon deliberations after inordinate delay on 5.5.2018 at 7.30 p.m. with the averments that in the night of 4/5.5.2018 at about 2.00 a.m. upon getting a phone call from coaccused Arti Kumari and Sunita, Lal Singh, son of first informant left out of village where applicant and coaccused persons, who were ambushing since before, assaulted him with sharp edged weapon resulting in cut of his throat and his body was hidden under heap of fodder in fields, which could be recovered at about 3.00 p.m. during search; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false, incorrect and concocted; that prior to lodging of FIR at 10.10 a.m. on 5.5.2018 first informant had lodged a missing report at same P.S. Karari with averments that during celebrations of birthday of Lal Singh he was singing and dancing and at about 2.30 a.m. on getting a phone call he left home without informing and since could not be searched, a missing report be lodged and his recovery be ascertained; that postmortem report of deceased states his death due to ante mortem head injuries caused with sharp edged weapon and as many as five injuries have been mentioned in postmortem report; that two witnesses of last seen Jagannath and Sudama in their statements dated 7.5.2018 have stated that Jagannath had attended birthday party and Lal Singh after getting tired had left towards East of village and was followed by applicant as well as Amar Singh, Bhan Singh,
Mukesh and Jitendra while Sudama stated that at about 5.00 a.m. when he was returning after attending call of nature, he seen applicant as well as Amar Singh, Bhan Singh, Mukesh and Jitendra near public tubewell, who stopped talking when passed near him and since dead body of deceased was found under heap of fodder, they believe murder of Lal Singh by above persons; that recovery of weapon of crime, Gandasa at joint pointing of applicant with Amar Singh and Bhan Singh of which there is no independent witness is not reliable; that brother of deceased in his statement recorded after inordinate delay on 20.5.2018 also claimed himself to be witness of last seeing deceased, having been followed by applicant and co-accused persons; that all above statements are in contradiction to averments made in missing report as well as FIR; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 18.5.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of 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.
Let the applicant Satyendra Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 92 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 120-B, 404, 34, I.P.C., P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(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.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 14.2.2019 T. Sinha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the case is a fit case for granting bail in a murder charge without merits
Whether the applicant can be released on bond with conditions of cooperation and non-tampering
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Satyendra Kumar
State Of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
