Allowed

Brijesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2023BAIL/16357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant charged with murder and causing hurt under IPC Sections 304 and 504. Bail allowed without expressing opinion on merits, noting record discrepancies regarding injury count and witness roles.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108503

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16357 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Brijesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Sukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA, 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.1135 of 2022, under Sections 304 and 504 IPC, Police Station Quarsi Nagar, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and 3 others and according to the prosecution, applicant along with othere co-accused persons committed the murder of husband of the informant by causing him brick injuries on his chest.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased and it appears from the FIR that informant was not an eye witness and she stated that Rajpal, Narotam Singh and Ram Beti were the eye witnesses but Investigating Officer did not record their statements as eye witnesses and their statements were recorded as witnesses of inquest and from their statements it appears that they did not witness the incident.

¶10

He further submits that even from the perusal of the post

¶11

mortem report it appears that deceased sustained 3 serious injuries on his chest and his heart was also found ruptured, therefore, post mortem report belies the version of FIR as these injuries cannot be caused only by bricks. He further submits, even from the FIR and the statements of witnesses, no intention to commit murder could be reflected.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in the present matter since 16.11.2022.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that charge sheet has been filed only against applicant and from the perusal of the statement of eye witnesses of the incident it appears that applicant made assault through brick due to that deceased died. However, both the learned counsels could not dispute the fact that even as per eye witnesses, applicant made one assault on the chest of the deceased through brick and there was no repetition of any assault.

¶14

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

¶15

From the perusal of the record it appears that informant of the case was not an eye witness and although applicant and three others were made accused but during investigation the involvement of other co-accused persons were found false.

¶16

Although during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of eye witnesses then they stated that applicant gave a single blow on the chest of the deceased through brick in anger but from the perusal of the post mortem report of the deceased it appears that deceased sustained three

¶17

separate injuries on his chest.

¶18

Therefore, considering the nature of allegation and assault alleged to have been made by applicant and autopsy report of deceased, 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-Brijesh 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 evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 17.5.2023/SKM

¶27

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

Brijesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Brijesh 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

Madhusudan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arjun Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Kushwaha @ Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Awadhesh Kumar Rathore Vs State of U.P.