Dismissed

Manoj Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 May 2019BAIL/6845/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the applicant's bail application in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence and denied immediate relief. However, owing to the prolonged period of the applicant's detention since July 2018, the Court directed the lower court to conclude the trial early in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. referencing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; Trial directed to be concluded as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 08.05.2019 Delivered on 20.05.2019

¶3

Court No. - 51

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6845 of 2019 Applicant :- Manoj Gangwar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheshadri Trivedi,Shri Satish Trivedi Senior Advocate,Vikas Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Narayan Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Mohd. Nadeem, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.334 of 2018, under Section 302, I.P.C., Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur.

¶8

At the very outset it has been informed to the Court that the said coaccused namely Ganga Ram Gangwar has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.01.2019. The Court has perused the said order.

¶9

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is to the effect that even though the applicant has been named in the FIR with the allegations that it is the present applicant who alongwith his brother-in-law namely Ganga Ram Gangwar has taken away the deceased Sobhhit on their motorcycle and subsequently the body of the deceased was found, however, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody has infact seen the actual participation of the applicant in the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The further contention is that apart from last seen evidence there is no other evidence to show the participation of the applicant in the alleged crime. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of the first informant namely Rajeev Kumar Gupta, wherein he admitted that the applicant namely Manoj is the friend of his son namely Sobhit (Deceased) and they have no enmity. He also admits that ^^?kVuk dk dksbZ p'enhn xokg ugh gS**A He further contended that the applicant has been named in the present case only on the basis that the deceased

¶10

¶11

was taken away by the applicant Manoj Gangwar on his motorcycle in the presence of the wife of the deceased namely Pooja Gupta and the wife of the first informant namely Madhuri Gupta.

¶12

The counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA appearing for the State have very strongly opposed the prayer for bail and have also placed reliance on the Mazid Bayan of the first informant as well as on the statement of Mithlesh Gangwar, who is an eye witness, copies of which have been annexed as annexure nos.7 and 10 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Thus the contention of learned AGA, is that merely because the applicant has been shown to be present at the time of Panchayatnama, will not create any ground for grant of indulgence by this Court, in favour of the applicant.

¶13

Further, much reliance has been placed on the testimony of Mithlesh Gangwar, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no.10 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, wherein he has given a crystal clear evidence against the present applicant and he also assigned specific role to the present applicant.

¶14

The contention of the counsel for the applicant that an incident of firing took place between the two groups of persons, as a result of which Sobhit (the deceased) was killed, has also been denied by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA by making reference to the postmortem report, which shows that blackening was present and thus it is a case where the shot was fired from a very close range.

¶15

In view of the above, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

¶17

However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.07.2018, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded as early as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as have been laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 20.05.2019/VKG

Manoj Gangwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Gangwar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.

Babu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Robby Vs State of U.P.

Abbas Alias Basa Vs State of U.P.

Gurmeeet Singh @ Raju Vs State of U.P.