Allowed

Guddu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023BAIL/12182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case under sections 147, 148, 302, 324 and 504 IPC. The applicant was among 11 accused but had no specific role assigned and injuries did not corroborate the manner of assault alleged.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12182 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Yadav,Krishna Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.101 of 2022,under Sections 147,148,302, 324 and 504 IPC, Police Station Khudfatehgadh, District Sambhal during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and ten others and according to the FIR, applicant and others were the neighbour of the informant and some dispute arose between them and due to this reason they made assault upon her husband and son through wooden sticks and knife while they were going towards Jungle and due to assault made by them the son of the informant lost his life and in the incident the father of the deceased , i.e., husband of the informant also sustained injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and due to enmity which has been admitted by the informant herself in the FIR, applicant has been implicated in the present matter along with 10 others and no specific role has been assigned either by the informant or even by the injured Bhoop Singh. He further submits that on the basis of general allegation, applicant and 10 others were made accused and

¶10

from the perusal of the post mortem report of the deceased it appears that he died due to stab wound and it is nowhere stated either in the FIR or in the statement of any witness including the statement of injured Bhoop Singh that applicant was having knife in his hand.

¶11

He further submits that although in the incident it is alleged that injured Bhoop Singh, the father of the deceased also sustained injuries but from the perusal of the injury report of injured Bhoop Singh it appears that although he sustained about 7 injuries but all his injuries were simple in nature and therefore, post mortem report of the deceased and the injury report of the injured completely belies the manner of assault alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that along with applicant 10 others were made accused in the FIR and out of 10 accused persons, 4 accused persons have already been released on bail and bail orders of 2 co-accused persons, namely, Preeti and Jagveer dated 2.2.2023 and 8.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1271 of 2023 and 3019 of 2023 respectively have been annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application.

¶12

He next submits that the case of applicant is exactly at par with them and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 12.9.2022.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that on the basis of general allegation applicant along with 10 others have been made accused in the present matter and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and 4 co-accused persons, who were also named in the FIR along with the applicant have already been released on bail and the case of applicant is at par with them.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶15

record of the case.

¶16

Although it is a case in which one person lost his life and his father sustained injuries in the alleged incident but it appears that on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, applicant has been made accused along with 10 others and from the perusal of the post mortem report of the deceased, it appears that he sustained single stab wound and although father of the deceased, i.e., injured of the case Bhoop Singh sustained several injuries on his body but all his injuries were found simple and there is no evidence on record which can show that applicant was the person, who was having knife. Further, post mortem report of the deceased and the injury report of the injured does not corroborate the manner of assault as alleged by the prosecution.

¶17

Along with applicant co-accused Preeti, Jagveer, Vikki and Nitesh @ Golu were also made accused and they have been released on bail by this Court and the case of applicant is at par with them.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant- Guddu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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

¶23

evidence.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 SKM

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Guddu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Vishwakarma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Secetary Home and 3 Others

Kallan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Ansar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Lal Sahab @ Sadhu Banwasi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others