Allowed

Jernail Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2019BAIL/6896/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, Jernail Singh, accused under Sections 302, 323, and 325 IPC in a case involving death. The court relied on the delay in FIR, general role, lack of criminal history, and absence of eyewitnesses against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6896 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jernail Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrendra Nath Singh,Vijay Praksah

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Praksah, learned counsel for the complainant, Ms. Reema Gupta (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 26.5.2018 after four days of the incident against three accused persons, namely, Pratap Singh, Jarnail Singh and Chanan Singh alleging that on 22.5.2018 they assaulted Sandeep Singh by lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. He received several injuries. One is on head. After four days of the incident due to septicaemia and pus he died.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 2.6.2018 (about nine months) having no criminal history. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. General role has been assigned to the applicant and it is not clear that who had caused head injury. F.I.R. was lodged after four days of the incident after through and with due legal consultation due to previous enmity. Initially, FIR was lodged under Section 304 IPC and charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. There is no independent witness against the applicant. There is no eye witness against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Jernail Singh involved in Case Crime No. 129 of 2018, under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 302 IPC, Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor be released on bail on furnishing a

¶11

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

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

4.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

5.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 :- 27.2.2019 OP

Jernail Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jernail Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyaneshwar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Murti @ Murtiyan Vs State of U.P.

Deep Chand Vs State of U.P.

Nizakat Vs State of U.P.

Sharfaraz Vs State of U.P.

Aarish @ Haaris Vs State of U.P.