Dismissed

Govind Kumar Gautam @ Govinda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2023BAIL/10772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects a criminal bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for murder. The court weighed submissions regarding lack of eyewitnesses and forensic contradictions against prosecution evidence including last-seen areas and recovered articles, concluding the accused was not entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail was rejected; the bail application was dismissed.

Govind Kumar Gautam @ Govinda Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10772 of 2023 Applicant :- Govind Kumar Gautam @ Govinda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Krishna Kant Vishwakarma

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicantaccused in case crime No.02 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Barsathi, District Jaunpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

¶7

The first information report was lodged by the informant against applicant and co-accused Bauwa Vanwasi, alleging that on the night of 31.12.2022 they have committed murder of the husband of informant.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicantaccused that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident. The only evidence shown against applicant is that on 31.12.2022 the deceased was 'last seen' with applicant and co-accused Bauwa Vanwasi, going towards Suklaganj market. As per prosecution version, the dead-body of deceased was recovered on 01.01.2023 at around 9.45 AM. Referring to postmortem report, it was submitted that deceased has sustained multiple injuries and the version of first information report is not supported from the nature of injuries shown in postmortem report of the deceased. As per prosecution version, deceased was 'last seen' with applicant at 7.30 PM and dead-body of deceased has been recovered on next day and that

¶9

at the time of postmortem, semi digested food was found in the stomach of deceased and thus, the prosecution version is quite contradictory with medical evidence. The allegation that applicant and co-accused have committed murder of deceased by attacking him with bricks is wholly false. It is further submitted that alleged recovery of blood-stained shirt shown at the instance of applicant-accused, is thoroughly false and that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery. Further, the F.S.L. report regarding said blood-stained shirt is yet to be received. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicant-accused. Lastly, it has been argued that the applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 03.01.2023, having no criminal history, and that in case, applicant-accused is enlarged on bail, the applicant-accused will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant-accused is named in the first information report and that witnesses have stated that applicant and co-accused Bauwa Vanwasi have committed murder of deceased by assaulting him with bricks. The deceased was 'last seen' with applicant and co-accused Bauwa Vanwasi on 31.12.2022 and on next day morning, his dead-body was recovered. It was pointed out that dog squad called by the police at spot, has pointed out to the house of applicant-accused. The blood stained shirt of applicant was also recovered at the instance of applicant.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicantaccused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant-accused is hereby rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Neeraj

¶13

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Govind Kumar Gautam @ Govinda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Kumar Gautam @ Govinda 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankalp Dixit Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Golu Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Other

Raj @ Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Angad Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saed Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Nafeesa Vs State of U.P.