Allowed

Santosh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2019BAIL/9010/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a bail application filed by two accused persons charged under Sections 302 IPC for a murder charge. The court, noting the lack of independent witnesses and no criminal history for the applicants, held it a fit case for bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9010 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Shekhar,Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri D.N. Tiwari, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely, Devendra, Santosh and Shekhar alleging that Moni Devi, sister of the complainant was married with Devendra before 9 to 10 years and on 7.4.2018 they killed her by pouring kerosene. She received burn injuries. During investigation, the statement of the deceased was recorded in which she had stated that she received burn injury in an incident at the time of cooking food. After one month of the incident, the statement of the daughter of the deceased was recorded in which she had stated that her father and applicants had killed her mother.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are languishing in jail since 24.5.2018 (more than nine months) having no criminal history. They are brother-inlaws and are living separately. They had no concern with the incident. During investigation, final report was submitted and no evidence was found against the applicants. Thereafter, the maternal uncle (Mama) had taken the girl in his house and after one month by changing I.O. tutting the daughter of the deceased sent for statement which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she had stated that her father had thrown kerosene on the body of the deceased with the help of the applicants and they set her on fire that is after thought and with due legal consultation. The main allegation has been levelled against the husband of the deceased. There is no independent witness against the applicants. There is no eye witness account against the applicants and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted that applicants havr no criminal history and also admitted the above facts stated by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶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 applicants Santosh And Shekhar involved in Case Crime No. 356 of 2018, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Uttar, District Firozabad 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:

¶11

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

4.The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

5.The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.3.2019 OP

Santosh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh and Another 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

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Anand Vs State of U.P.

Sundram @ Pravendra Vs State of U.P.

Nawab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Vs State of U.P.