Allowed

Gulab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Mar 2021BAIL/38421/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application for an accused facing murder charges. Relying on Judicial Precedent and noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail, the court held it a fit case for bail despite the grave nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with specific conditions.

Gulab Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38421 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Gulab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subedar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56795 of 2019 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2020.

¶7

This second bail application on behalf of the applicant has been filed with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.154 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Chhata, district Mathura.

¶8

The first information report of this incident was got lodged on 18.05.2019 by complainant Smt. Rekha wife of deceased Vinod against accused Gulab. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that on 17.05.2019 at about 6:00 P.M. the present accused Gulab Singh came to the house of the complainant and told her husband Vinod that he want to purchase an old car and asked him to accompany him and also promised that the profit would be shared between them. After collecting about one lakh of rupees the deceased Vinod had gone with the present accused Gulab and deceased and present accused were seen consuming liquor together on the same evening. Thereafter, the deceased Vinod had not returned to his home and in the next morning people informed the complainant about the death of her husband.

¶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 the as in the first information report the applicant was allegedly shown seen in the company of the deceased. He submitted that the prosecution has changed the story in this matter and later on other accused persons were also nominated in this case and during investigation other accused persons were also nominated. He submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out, which could implicated the applicant with the

¶10

commission of the crime. He submitted that during investigation no amount of money was even recovered from the possession of the applicant, who was allegedly taken away Rs.1 lac from the deceased and his family members. He submitted that the co-accused Dinesh @ Vishvendra has been admitted to the concession of bail by another Bench of this Court by order dated 08.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15522 of 2020. He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2019 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail plea but has not disputed the fact that the coaccused Dinesh has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court.

¶12

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, 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 the aforesaid coaccused Dinesh @ Vishvendra has 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. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Gulab 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:

¶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

¶19

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 :- 26.3.2021 R./

Gulab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab 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

Rohtash @ Devendra @ Taunta Vs State of U.P.

Lal Bahadur Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Arun Katheriya Vs State of U.P.

Aditya Alias Marshall Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Shakir Mirza Vs State of U.P.