Allowed

Munesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022BAIL/30268/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding murder and abetment, the Allahabad High Court, considering parity with a similar co-accused and the nature of the case, found it a fit case for bail. The court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions regarding appearance in court and adherence to trial proceedings. The applicant involved in a violent crime

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearance and specific trial milestones.

Munesh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30268 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Munesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Dwivedi,Tufail Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Pravesh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA today is taken on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 203 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

¶8

It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant (brother of the deceased after two days of the incident in which the dead body of the deceased was found on railway track regarding which information was given by the Railway Station Superintendent to the Police. It is further submitted that in the postmortem crush injuries were fond on the person of the deceased and his dead body was found in three parts, which clearly indicates that this was the case of railway accident. It is further stated the name of the applicant came into light in the statement of co accused Guddi Devi. The applicant is in jail since 16.04.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶9

It is next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Smt Guddi Devi, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2432 of 2022, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

I have perused the bail order of co accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co accused person who has already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶12

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Munesh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) 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

¶15

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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(iii) 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 IPC.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶20

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.11.2022 RavindraKSingh

¶23

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.14 16:40:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munesh 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

Dheeraj Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Govind Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Pritam Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Ali Mohammad @ Dablu Vs State of U.P.