Allowed

Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2020BAIL/5144/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court considered the release of the applicant charged with Section 302 IPC offences. Finding that the applicant was not named in the FIR and had no motive, the court inclined to release him on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Monu is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5144 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,V. S. Sisodia

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Name of Sri V.S. Sisodia is shown in the list as a counsel appearing for the first informant but he is not present. This case was taken up twice but even then learned counsel for the first informant is not present.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Monu seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with case crime no.33 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Bahadurgarh, District Hapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that a first information report was lodged on 27.02.2019 at about 11.20 hours for an incident which took place on 27.02.2019 in the morning in which Latoor Singh is the first informant who has stated that while he was going from the jungle of his village he saw the deadbody of unknown person lying in the field of Susheel which had been tied around the tree. Neck of the deceased had been tied with bed-sheet. It appears that some unknown person has committed the murder and had tried to conceal the body.

¶9

He further argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report, his name appeared for the first time after four days in the statement of co-accused Firdaus alias Neelam. He has no motive to commit the aforesaid crime.There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. The recovery of a mobile has been shown on the pointing out of the co-accused Vijendra. This case is a case of false implication. He further argued that the applicant is in jail since 02.03.2019 and has no criminal antecedents as stated in para-24 of the affidavit, therefore, he be released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail but could not dispute

¶11

the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record without further any comments on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Monu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶21

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.2.2020 Asha

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu 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

Hori @ Hori Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rammohan Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Omkaar @ Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.