Held that the bail application in a case alleging murder is rejected considering the gravity of the offence and severity of punishment, without expressing an opinion on merits, with a direction to expedite trials.
Bail application rejected; trial to be expedited within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7199 of 2018
Applicant :- Subham Yadav @ Shanu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Rajeev Upadhyay,Sharda Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
This bail application on behalf of the applicant has been filed with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0094 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 364/34 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, district Allahabad.
The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant on 15.02.2016 against the applicant. It was alleged in the first information report that on 12.02.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. the son of the complainant was in the company of accused, Vicky, Shanu and Rajesh and thereafter, a quarrel started between them and near Vikas Bhawan and suddenly marpikt took place between them and thereafter, all the named persons took the deceased with them and later-on the dead-body of the deceased was found.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive. He submitted that no one has witnessed the incident. He submitted that the alleged recovery of the decomposed parts of the dead-body at the instance of the applicant, is totally fake and false. He submitted that the alleged recovery was made from an isolated place. He further submitted that although the applicant was named in the first information report but only on the basis of suspicion. He submitted that only on the basis of the alleged recovery of the parts of the dead body it can not be safely inferred that the applicant had committed the murder or he has witnessed the crime to be committed by someone else. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.02.2016 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected with a direction to the court below that the trial of the aforesaid case be expedited and positively be concluded within six months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this order, after normal functioning of the courts as the courts are not functioning properly due to Covid-19.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 10.11.2020 R./
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case under Section 302 IPC.
Subham Yadav @ Shanu
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
