Allowed

Banty Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2020BAIL/24161/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to applicant Banty Singh in a murder case. The court held that the case rests on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitness, and the weapon recovery was suspect due to lack of public witness and question of blood stain verification.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering, threatening witnesses, and ensuring attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24161 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Banty Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This application has been entertained without an affidavit on account of the extraordinary contingency created by the Covid-19 pandemic where the travel is restricted. This Court notices the fact that there is a declaration by the applicant that he will file an affidavit. This order is being passed, therefore, subject to a certain conditions in this regard.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Banty Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 239 of 2020, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad.

¶7

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that it is a case that rests on circumstantial evidence. No one has seen the occurrence. The circumstances appearing against the applicant is the evidence of last seen and a motive about the applicant's desire to marry the deceased, who was already married. In the meanwhile, the recovery of the weapon of offence at the applicant's pointing is shown from a place frequented by the public. It is

¶9

submitted that so far as the recovery goes, it is clearly planted, of which, there is no independent witness. The weapon of offence also is not clearly said to bear blood stains but only suspected to be stained. There is no serological report available on record. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 04.05.2020.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the fact that no one has seen the occurrence, the fact that the evidence against the applicant is of a suspected motive, and last seen, the fact that a further evidence of recovery prima facie appears to be suspect in the absence of a public witness, associated or the fact of the blood stains being clearly alleged and established, the fact that recovery of the alleged weapon is from a busy public place, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant, Banty Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 239 of 2020, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad, be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶18

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(viii) 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.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶23

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial

¶24

Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

It is made clear that in case, an affidavit in support of this application duly sworn is not filed, as declared, within 15 days of resumption of swearing of affidavits, the bail granted to the applicant shall be cancelled.

¶26

Order Date :- 28.9.2020 NSC

Banty Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banty 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

Apeksha Tripathi(Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ishika Saxena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Arti Pal @ Aisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheeraj Shahi @ Surya Pratap Shahi Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Dubey @ Sintu Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Alias Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P.