Dismissed

Shyamu @ Lala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023/2586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 437 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea of an accused charged with murder. The Court noted recovery of the weapon, confessional statements, and lack of similarity in the factual role of the applicant compared to other accused granted bail.

What did the court decide?

None; the application seeking enlargement on bail orders is rejected.

Shyamu @ Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2586 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Shyamu @ Lala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Srinivas Bajpai, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶6

By means of the instant application the applicant Shyamu alias Lala S/o Baijnath alias Jangli seeks bail in Case Crime No. 159 of 2020, under sections 302/450, IPC, P.S. Gadaganj, District Raebareli.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report (F.I.R.) lodged against- (1) Ramu, (2) Shyamu alias Lala (applicant herein), (3) Suraj and (4) Baijnath alias Junglee on 6th of July 2022 at 1.15 hrs, stating that on 4th of July 2020 the accused persons had put up wooden Gumti in front of a grove and the informant's husband had objected that the grove was under joint-ownership and no Gumati should be put without partition of the grove. Because of the aforesaid dispute, at about 10:00 p.m. on 5th of July 2020 the accused persons reached upon the rooftop, where the informant's husband was laying down and they attacked him with sticks and axe, causing serious injuries to him and he died while he was on the way to the hospital. The FIR further states that the informant, her mother-in-law Maiki, niece Anjali and two small children, who were present in the house, tried to save the deceased, but the accused persons did not leave him.

¶8

In the statement of the informant recorded under section 161, CrPC she stated that the wooden Gumti had been put up by the applicant and she reiterated the FIR version. In the statement of the informant's mother in law Maiki and the informant's niece Anjali, they reiterated the F.I.R. version and stated that they had seen the incident in the light of an electric bulb. A copy of the relevant extract of case-diary annexed with the affidavit, filed in support of the bail-application indicates that the applicant had confessed that he had made an assault with an axe on the head of the deceased and he had hidden the axe inside the house, and the sticks had been thrown away in Ganga river. The axe was recovered from the house of the applicant on his pointing out.

¶9

The state has filed a counter affidavit and annexing therewith a copy of the forensic report, as per which blood has been found on the axe and on its handle.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that besides the applicant, all the other three co-accused have already been granted bail and copies of their bail orders have been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bailapplication.

¶11

Co-accused Baijnath has been granted bail by means of an order dated 4th of March 2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1156 of 2021 on the ground that in the statement of one of the witnesses Jagatpal role of exhortation has been assigned to Baijnath.

¶12

Co-accused Ramu has been granted bail by means of an order dated 6th of July 2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3926 of 2022 on the ground that role of exhortation was assigned to Baijnath and general role of assault

¶13

has been assigned to all the other accused persons. Co-accused Ramu has been granted bail after taking note of the fact that the vital injury was an incised wound, inflicted on the parietal region of the body of the deceased and the applicant had confessed having inflicted the aforesaid injury and an axe has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.

¶14

The third co-accused Suraj has been granted bail by means of order dated 2nd of December, 2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12559 of 2022 merely on the ground that two of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail.

¶15

I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. What Prima facie appears from the material before the Court at this stage is that the wooden Gumati, which initiated the dispute between the parties and which led to death of the informant's husband had been put up by the applicant; in the autopsy report of the dead-body of the deceased, besides numerous lacerated wounds, an incised wound on right side of the parietal region and another incised wound on the left arm, have been reported on the dead-body of the deceased and the cause of death has been opined to be coma, as a result of antemortem head injury; that several persons have seen the incident; that the deceased suffered an incised wound on the parietal region and he died due to the aforesaid head injury; that an axe has been recovered from the house of the applicant on his pointing out, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts disentitle the applicant for the grant of discretion of this court by enlarging him on bail.

¶16

So far as the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity with the co-accused persons, is concerned, I have already

¶17

noted the reasons for granting bails to the co-accused persons and the case setup against the applicant is not similar to that setup against them, who have been granted bail.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this bail-application is rejected .

¶19

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶20

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 A.Nigam

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyamu @ Lala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamu @ Lala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Rustam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko.

Mithun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Ankur Rastogi @ Shakti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhay Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home Civil Sect. Lko

Abdul Rahman Vs the State of U.P. Thru.Deptt.of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others