Allowed

Vimlesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 May 2023BAIL/11140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a bail application filed by Vimlesh in a murder case IPC 302. The court allowed the application, emphasizing the absence of admissible evidence directly implicating the applicant beyond circumstantial links, and granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

Vimlesh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102650

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11140 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vimlesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120B IPC, Police Station Walterganj, District Basti, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.11.2022 against two persons (non applicant) and according to the FIR on 14.11.2022 younger brother of the informant had gone to meet with co-accused Jagannath but did not return and thereafter, his dead body was found. It is further mentioned in the FIR that coaccused Jagannath was having illicit relationship with the coaccused Gudia, i.e. wife of the deceased.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation when statement of co-accused Jagannath was recorded than he disclosed his name and thereafter it is alleged that Investigating Officer during investigation, procured a cctv footage and also recorded the statement of one Pawan Kumar Singh, eye witness of murder and he stated that on 14.11.2022 applicant alongwith deceased and co-accused Jaganath and one another had come at his hotel and after consuming the food and liquor they had gone and this fact was also verified by the cctv footage. He further submitted except the statements of coaccused Jagannath and Pawan Kumar and cctv footage, there is no evidence against the applicant on record.

¶10

He further submitted that from the perusal of the cctv footage and the statment of Pawan Kumar Singh, it could only be reflected that on 14.11.2022 in the late night, applicant

¶11

alongwith deceased and co-accused Jagannath, consumed food and liquor and merely on this basis, it cannot be said that applicant also indulged in commission of the present crime.

¶12

He further submitted that there is specific evidence that applicant and others including deceased consumed liquor and from perusal of the post mortem report of the deceased, it reflects the he died due to asphyxia due to drowning, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that deceased might have been fell into the river and died and there is no evidence that applicant pushed the deceased in the river, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased died immediately after taking food and liquor alongwith applicant and other co-accused persons and this fact shows that applicant also involved in the present matter but could not dispute the fact that from the perusal of the autopsy report of the deceased, it appears that he did not sustain any injury and his cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Applicant was not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced in the statement of co-accused who was named in the FIR. Although during investigation on the basis of cctv footage and statement of Pawan Kumar it reflected that applicant and other accused persons and deceased took dinner and also consumed liquor before death and post mortem report of the deceased suggested that deceased died on 14.11.2022 but post report report further suggest that deceased died due to drowning and as per cctv footage and statement of Pawan Kumar, he also consumed liquor. Further, in the present matter except the evidence that applicant and other co-accused persons including deceased took the dinner and consumed liquor on 14.11.2022, there is no other admissible evidence against the applicant on record.

¶16

Therefore, from the discussions made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Vimlesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

¶19

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶25

Order Date :- 11.5.2023

¶26

Ankita

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimlesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh 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

Faheem Khan Vs State of U.P.

Deepchand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Matelu Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Hasim Vs State of U.P.

Rina Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.