Sumit v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court rejected a bail application filed by Sumit in a murder trial. Despite arguments regarding lack of eye-witnesses and forensic challenges, the Court refused bail due to the gravity of Section 302 IPC charges, the deceased naming the applicant, and the nature of the FIR.
What did the court decide?
Bail application rejected; applicant to remain in judicial custody.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5926 of 2022
Applicant :- Sumit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.
Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal states that he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant which is available on record but his name has not been printed in the cause list.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sumit, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 75 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no eye witness to the murder. It is further argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. along with three other accused persons namely Dharmveer, Sonu and Sonu son of Kallu @ Jagat Singh and there are general allegations of assault. It is argued that the injuries received by the deceased are on one side of the body. The post mortem report shows that although the deceased was found to have received 10 injuries on the body but cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. Viscera report is still awaited. It is argued that inquest was conducted in the mortuary of Medical College on the information of ward boy Deepu. It is further argued that the co-accused Sonu has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29385 of 2021(Sonu vs. State of U.P.), copy of said order is annexure no. 10 to the affidavit. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 26 and is in jail since 30.3.2021.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in a 302 IPC murder case where the deceased disclosed the applicant's name.
Whether the gravity of the offence and availability of evidence warrant refusal of bail.
Whether the distinction in bail order for a co-accused applies to the applicant.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sumit
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Samit Gopal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/5926/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court