Allowed

Ram Prasad (Third Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023/1829/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a murder case under IPC 302 and 120-B. The High Court allowed the third bail application, noting that five prosecution witnesses had already been examined, none placing the applicant at the scene, and co-accused were already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail upon furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with prosecution evidence or witnesses and appearing for tria

Ram Prasad (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1829 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Prasad (Third Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Awasthi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This third bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 343 of 2017, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Talganon, District Sitapur.

¶7

Second application was rejected by means of an order dated 18.11.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 7251 (B) of 2019. After rejection of the second bail application, the trial proceeded and as many as five witnesses have already been examined copies whereof have been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and two supplementary affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant. All the witnesses examined by the trial court have stated that they have not seen the applicant at the place of occurrence. The deceased's son Satish Singh (PW-4) has categorically stated that he has falsely implicated the applicant under pressure of his family members.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the coaccused persons Sanjay Yadav, Rohit Singh and Vishnu Kumar Singh have already been granted bail and copies of their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 18, 19 & 20 to the

¶9

affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that as many as five witnesses of already been examined in the case, none of whom has supported presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence; that the witnesses of fact have already been examined; the applicant is no more in a position to influence the witnesses and also the fact that the co-accused Sanjay Yadav, Rohit Singh, Vishnu Kumar Singh have already been granted bail whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.12.2017 and without making any observation which may affect the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Ram Prasad be released on bail in Case Crime No. 343 of 2017, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Talganon, District Sitapur on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Pradeep/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prasad (Third Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad (Third Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Raidas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Alias Jyotendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Aman Shah Vs State Thru. CBI/AC-1, New Delhi

Abhinav Pal Alias Nanoo and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Hoem Lko.