Allowed

Umesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2019BAIL/8720/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 437 CrPC, the court allowed the applicant's release on bail in a murder case. The court permitted release despite grave charges, citing parity with a co-accound released earlier and the applicant's lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8720 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Nath Singh,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mishra (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown alleging that 26.10.2018, Jitendra Chamar was killed and his dead body was found on the road. Later on, the name of Ravi, Umesh and Dilip was surfaced and it was also found that there was illicit relation Ravi with another lady and deceased had seen this act and with the help of the applicant, they killed Jitendra Chamar. One country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Ravi. One gun shot injury was found on the body of the deceased.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accusedRavi has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3917 of 2019 and the case of the applicant is not heinous than the case of co-accused Ravi, who has already been enlarged on bail; hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2018 (three and half months) having no criminal history. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. General role has been assigned against the applicant. There is no recovery on the pointing out of the applicant. Country made pistol was recovered from the possession Ravi. The applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion. There is no legal evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement of co-accused.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that the applicant has no criminal history and also admitted that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Ravi, who has been enlarged on bail and one pistol was recovered from the possession of Ravi.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody,

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant Umesh involved in Case Crime No. 480 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictMau 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

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 :- 28.2.2019 OP

Umesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh 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

Jernail Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nizakat Vs State of U.P.

Sharfaraz Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Anand Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Rajput Vs State of U.P.