Allowed

Satendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2020BAIL/11682/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this bail application in a murder case, holding that the applicant is entitled to bail during the trial pending evidence. The court emphasized the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and release conditions despite the serious nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties in the like amount under the specified conditions.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11682 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Satendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar,Ajay Vikram Yadav,Jetendra Kumar Pandey,Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dwijendra Prasad

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 327 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Pachokhara, districtFirozabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The first information report of the incident was lodged by the complainant against disappearance of his father, alleging therein that his father has been murdered by some unknown person. Later on the scribe of the FIR had given statement before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the present accused and the mother of the complainant was having illicit relations and due to which his father has been murdered.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He next submits that the applicant was not in the FIR. His name as an accused in the present case surface for the first time in the statement of son of the deceased during investigation, which was recorded after a week. There is no direct and cogent evidence against the present accused, except confessional statements of the applicant and the coaccused Guddi Devi made before the police after they were taken into custody. He next submits that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Further submission is that other co-accused Guddi Devi has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.7.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 2285 of 2019. He lastly submits that the applicant, who is in jail since 18.10.2017 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Let the applicant, Satendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

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

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.11.2020 Faridul

Satendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra 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

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

ravi @ nitin Vs State of U.P.

Govind Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.

Deepak @ Deep Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.