Dismissed

Ravi Kumar Alias Sudeep Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2020BAIL/21832/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a second bail application in a murder case, noting the prosecution rests on a dying declaration. Despite the FIR-lander being hostile, other witnesses supported the case. Bail was denied as not a fit case, and the trial court was directed to conclude trial within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded within four months.

Ravi Kumar Alias Sudeep Pratap Singh Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21832 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Alias Sudeep Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar,Zia Naz Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Zia Naz Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 824 of 2017, u/s 302/34 IPC, P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.

¶7

This is the second bail application. The first bail was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 11.10.2018 while recording that there is dying declaration of the deceased in which specific role of pouring kerosene oil and setting the deceased ablaze who happens to be Bhabhi of the applicant has been attributed to the accused-applicant. The second bail application has been moved on the ground that the husband of the deceased who had lodged F.I.R. has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that two other witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 father and uncle of the deceased have supported the prosecution case and conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and considering the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶10

I may record that ordersheet of the trial court reflects that six witnesses including formal witnesses have been examined till date. In view of it, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.1.2020 Dhirendra/

Ravi Kumar Alias Sudeep Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Alias Sudeep Pratap 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Saroj Vs State of U.P.

Chheddu Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Balram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Kishore Sharma Vs C.B.I.,Acb

Sunil Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.