Dismissed

Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022BAIL/28199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is the second bail application by Umesh Kumar, accused in a murder and attempted murder case involving alleged gunshot injuries. The High Court considered arguments regarding false implication, common intention, and parity with co-accused on bail but ultimately rejected the application due to the nature of the offence and lack of sufficient case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected. Applicant remains in custody.

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28199 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Manava Nand Chaurasiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Chahar

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected on 26.07.2021 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21922 of 2022.

¶7

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Umesh Kumar , who is involved in Case Crime No. 15 of 2021, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Kagaraul, District Agra.

¶9

As per the prosecution story, Incident is said to have taken place on 25.02.2021 at about 08:25 hours whereas F.I.R. was lodged on the same day. It is alleged that informant's brother were sitting in his house, at the very time, informant's neighbours armed with rifle and applicant armed with country made pistol, hurling abuses assaulted informant's brothers and on account of previous water dispute and when they, in order to save their lives, rushed towards another house then in the way all accused persons surrounded them and applicant opened fire upon Pappu alias Hardam Singh consequently he died at the spot.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed the offence as alleged against him. He further submitted that there is previous enmity between the applicant and other co-accused. He further submitted that this is a case of free fight and from the side of the applicant one person had died and three person were got injured whereas six persons were injured from the accused side. It is further submitted that the allegation of causing fire arm injury by the applicant to Kapil Kumar was not support with the medical evidence because according the post-mortem report, deceased has suffered two

¶11

injuries which were found to be lacerated wound. He further submitted that the statement of witnesses is not supported with prosecution version. He further submitted that the applicant is claiming for parity of the co-accused Rajeev, who has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court. He further submitted that it is not a case where common object or common intention is prevail against the accused who were present on the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that co-accused Deepak has already been enlarged on bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 and also on the basis of bail of the co-accused Deepak, learned counsel for the applicant is claiming parity of the present applicant. He further submitted that co-accused Rajeev has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22287 of 2021. The applicant is in jail since 28.02.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of second bail by contending that in the statement of the injured Khushi Ram Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that applicant is having country made pistol fired upon the injured Kapil with the intention to kill him. He further submitted that the claiming of parity to co-accused Deepak having no deadly weapon and only allegation of marpeet. As such parity is not made out to the applicant, therefore, no case is made out for bail and the second bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of the injured recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.12.2022 Sanjeet

¶16

Digitally signed by SANJEET KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.12.15 12:29:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar 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

Dayasagar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Jaikishun Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Yagyapal @ Karua Vs State of U.P.

Chandramani Sahini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others