Allowed

Rikhai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022BAIL/36631/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Rikhai accused of culpable homicide/negligence in causing death of informant's son. Court noted applicant assigned catching role with no assault based on post-mortem findings, found no murder motive or recovered evidence. Bail granted on personal bond with sureties under standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36631 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rikhai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman,Amrita Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case for causing injuries to the son of the informant as a result he succumbed to injuries. Further submitted that the role of catching hold has been given to this applicant and of assault has been assigned to co-accused Tayar. During post-mortm, only one injury was found on the head of the deceased which also shows that no assault was made by this applicant on the deceased. There is no motive or intention to cause murder of the deceased. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of this applicant. He is languishing in jail since 23.3.2022, having no any criminal antecedent and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶7

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the role of assault has been assigned to co-accused Tayar and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Rikhai involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2022, under Section 304, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kubersthan, District Kushinagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶13

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.9.2022

¶17

A. Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by ANURAG SINGH Date: 2022.09.19 17:43:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rikhai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rikhai 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

Dinesh Bind Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ujjwal @ Ishan Vs State of U.P.

Rohit @ Rauki Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishori Lal Sonkar Vs State of U.P.