Allowed

Ballu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2020BAIL/4835/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail applications filed by Ballu, Jaiprakash, Santram, and Vikas for charge of murder and affray. Released on personal bond with two sureties each on conditions to ensure trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Ballu, Jaiprakash, Santram and Vikas released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amounts.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants place reliance on the order of co-accused Bhajji dated 06.01.2020 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57003 of 2019 and states that the only distinguishable feature in the present case is that co-accused, who was granted bail, is aged about 62 years old. Apart from that there is no other distinguishable feature and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has been granted bail. First information report of the incident was lodged against seven persons wherein it was mentioned that on 05.07.2019 when the father of the first informant had gone to the field to cut the green grass for the goats then the accused persons, who were sitting there, committed marpeet with lathi and danda and they also fired in the air with their firearms. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.07.2019 at about 7.00 A.M. but first information report was lodged on the same day at about 14.12 hours. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station is 16 kilometers. He further argues that there is unexplained delay in lodging the first information report. There are general allegations levelled against all the accused persons for assaulting Keshav Das, the deceased. The injury nos. 8 and 10 as noted in the postmortem examination report are incised wounds without any explanation whatsoever. Since the incident as detailed in the first information report and even mentioned in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant, there is a specific and clear version of the use of lathi and danda but still two incised wounds as received have not been explained at all. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that another co-accused Atma Ram had reported this matter to the police which was recorded in G.D. No. 51 at about 08:33 A.M. He has also received injuries in the present incident. It is further argued that another co-accused Jeetu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4589 of 2020. Learned counsel further argues that the distinguishing feature in the present three bail applications from the case of co-accused Jeetu is that there are recoveries of certain articles which have been shown from the pointing out of the applicants. The details of the recoveries as shown are follows:

Ballu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Yashpal Vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaiprakash Vs State of U.P.

Ballu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Yashpal Vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaiprakash Vs State of U.P.

A compact analysis

Coram

Ram Aashish Nishad @ Makanu Vs State of U.P.