Allowed

Rajesh Agrahari @ Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023/8815/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by an accused in a murder case involving the suicide of the applicant's sister. The court noted no specific role was assigned to the applicant in the FIR and granted bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Releasing the applicant on bail in Crime No.60 of 2023 under Sections 302/34, 120B IPC on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each with conditions to attend hearings

Rajesh Agrahari @ Pintu Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45438

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8815 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Agrahari @ Pintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Rajan Singh, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant and perused the record. The Vakalatama is taken on record.

¶7

2 . The Counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR in question was lodged stating that the sister of the informant aged about 37 years was married in the year 2012 and was blessed with three children. On 19.03.2023, an information was received by the informant that the sister had committed suicide by hanging. It was alleged that it has come to the knowledge of the informant that sister of the informant was killed by Amit Kumar, husband, father-in-law, Pannalal, mother-in-law Yashoda Devi, Pintu, brother-in-law (Jeth), Lallu, brother-in-law and Ajeet, brotherin-law and they are trying to gave the same as a colour of suicide.

¶8

3 . The Counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the postmortem report which indicates that the cause of death was antemortem hanging apart from the ligature mark, contusion over middle and left arm and abrasion over left arm, lateral surface of nose, face. He argues that the brother of the applicant, namely, Amit Kumar, the husband of the deceased, had given statement that on account of some disputes, an altercation had taken place and in fact, it was also admitted that he had caused certain injuries by slapping, as a result whereof, she had committed suicide.

¶9

4. The Counsel for the applicant argues that from the perusal of the postmortem report as well as the statement of the coaccused, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. He also argues that the applicant is living separately as is clear from the material, which has been filed to demonstrate that the applicant has separate kitchen and residence, which is evident

¶10

from the ration card filed by the applicant. In the light of the said, it is argued that in the FIR, the allegations are levelled against the entire family members, however, the charge-sheet was filed against two persons and the applicant was arrested during the pendency of the investigation.

¶11

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the investigation against the applicant is going on and the applicant has been arrested based upon the confessional statement as well as the statement of the daughter who was aged about 8 years who had also taken the name of the applicant. There is no denial of the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.

¶12

6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, it is clear that the name of the applicant has been surfaced in the confessional statement, it is also clear that the death of the deceased was on account of antemortem hanging and the ligature mark is present and the injuries shown in the postmortem report do not corroborate the FIR version that the deceased was killed by strangulation and then hanged, prima facie there is no motive to cause the offence, however, the same has to be seen at the time of trial after the evaluation of the evidence and the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 16.05.2023 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

8. Let the applicant Rajesh Agrahari @ Pintu be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.60 of 2023, under Sections 302/34, 120B IPC, Police Station Karaundikalan, District Sultanpur on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 akverma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Agrahari @ Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Agrahari @ Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. 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

Rishabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. and 3 Others

Chhathiram Verma Alias Nankan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Wahid Ali Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow

Suraj @ Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Bodhraj Alias Bojhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others