Allowed

Krishna Murari @ Bhola v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2021BAIL/22030/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under CrPC in connection with a murder investigation, the High Court granted bail to the applicant after distinguishing a precedent, noting the concession of bail to co-accused, and finding the case fit for release subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the bail application; ordered the applicant's release on personal bond with two sureties.

Krishna Murari @ Bhola Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22030 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Murari @ Bhola Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Hitesh Pachori

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri I.K.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55138 of 2019 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2019.

¶7

This second bail application on behalf of the applicant Krishna Murari @ Bhola has been filed in connection with Case Crime No.581 of 2019, N.C.R.No.01-019788-2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Malpura, district Agra.

¶8

The first information report of the incident was lodged by the complainant regarding the disappearance and murder of the father of the deceased. It was mentioned in the first information report that on 10.10.2019 in the morning the deceased had gone to Agra on his bicycle to collect the money as he was doing the business of money lending. It was further mentioned that when he did not return till evening then search was made and the matter was reported to the police. The dead-body of the deceased was found on 15.10.2019 then this report was lodged against some unknown persons. It was also mentioned that his father was having Nokia mobile phone, some papers of bank, debit card and credit card.

¶9

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 the ulterior motive. He submitted that co-accused Vishnu and Lokendra have been admitted to the concession of bail by another Bench of this Court by orders dated 06.03.2020 and 17.06.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9244 of 2020 (VIshnu) and 10508 of 2020 (Lokendra) after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant and the role assigned to the applicant is similar to the role of the other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail except that certain papers were allegedly shown recovered from the possession of the applicant, copy of the bail order of co-accused Vishnu has been annexed on page no.35 of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application, bail order of co-accused Lokendra has been produced by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record. He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.10.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail plea but have accepted the factual aspect of the matter.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations,

¶12

the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 and also the fact that aforesaid coaccused have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Krishna Murari @ Bhola involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

Order Date :- 12.1.2021

¶23

R./

Krishna Murari @ Bhola v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Murari @ Bhola 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sripati Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P.

Raman Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manni Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangali Vs State of U.P.

Ramkewal Vs State of U.P.

Smt Dayawati Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another