Allowed

Arjun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022BAIL/45811/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Arjun, an accused charged with murder under Section 302 IPC. The court noted the absence of eye-witnesses and contradictions in witness statements sufficed to make a bail case out despite a prior rejection.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with two heavy sureties subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and re-offending.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45811 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report of this case was lodged against applicant and co-accused Chotu alleging that on the night of 07.10.2019 as per daily routine deceased was sleeping at his ranch under a tree and on another cot applicant was sleeping and that on the morning of 08.10.2019 at 06.50 AM, deceased was found murdered and applicant was missing. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident and that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. There is no evidence that applicant was also sleeping at the spot.

¶7

It was submitted that the first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38686 of 2020, and after that three prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. Referring to statements of those witnesses, it was submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. There is no eye-witness of alleged incident and the prosecution version that applicant was 'last seen' with the deceased, is false. Lastly, it was submitted that

¶8

the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2019 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits and that no new ground for entertaining this second bail application is made out.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Arjun involved in case crime no. 505 of 2019, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶17

facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.17 10:43:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mudit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Garima Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another