Allowed

Moolchand @ Mullu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022BAIL/45015/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant accused under Section 302 IPC following a rejected bail application. The Court noted the applicant's lack of criminal history, absence of direct evidence, and jail overcrowding during the pandemic as key factors in allowing the bail application.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45015 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Moolchand @ Mullu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Singh,Alok Kumar Mishra,Shyam Singh Somvanshi

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Brij Raj Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 337 of 2021 at Police Station Faridpur District Bareilly under Sections 302 I.P.C.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 07.10.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 07.07.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Brij Raj Verma, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident happened on 02.07.2021. The F.I.R. was registered on 03.07.2021. The applicant was not named as the principal offender who caused the death of the deceased or as an accessory to the crime. The statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police authorities made

¶10

on 04.07.2021 was consistent with the F.I.R. Even in the confessional statement of the principal offender Bahadur made before the police authorities, the applicant was not named or ascribed any role in the offence. The victim was a drug addict had gone a wayward. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. There is no incriminating link in the chain of circumstances against the applicant. Apart from this case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused namely Mahendra who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 16.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44807 of 2021. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri I. P. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India).

¶13

These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Moolchand @ Mullu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2021 at Police Station Faridpur District Bareilly under Sections 302 I.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 8.2.2022 Dhananjai

¶23

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.02.09 17:38:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Moolchand @ Mullu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moolchand @ Mullu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Vs State of U.P and 4 Others

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Singh Vs State of Up.

Ashraf Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dhirendra Vs State of U.P.