Allowed

Deepak Nishad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023BAIL/18790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed for an accused charged with murder and other offenses. The court discharged the applicant on a personal bond and two sureties, observing that evidence was primarily circumstantial, the hammer lacked blood stains, and he had no prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to appearance, non-inducement, and no criminal activity conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117705

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18790 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri G.D.Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, 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.167 of 2022, under Sections 147,148,149,323,342,504,506, 364, 34, 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Gwaltoli, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against co-accused Udan and Sonu and one unknown person and according to the FIR when son of the informant was coming back to his home along with his friends Rakesh, Shani and Kaushal then on the way they were intercepted by nominated accused persons and they abducted his son and Shani, Kaushal and Rakesh managed to escape.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation none of the prosecution witnesses including Shani, Kaushal and Rakesh disclosed his name in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but when the second statement of co-accused Udan was recorded by Investigating Officer then he disclosed the name of applicant and stated that applicant was also involved with him in the present matter.

¶10

He further submits that after second statement of co-accused Udan, it is alleged that applicant was arrested and he confessed his guilt and thereafter on 5.10.2022 on the pointing out of coaccused Sonu one wooden stick was recovered from the bush and on the pointing out of applicant one hammer was recovered.

¶11

He further submits that except the statement of co-accused Udan and confessional statement of applicant and recovery of hammer, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶12

He further that that even the alleged recovered hammer was not having any blood stained mark and, therefore, it cannot be connected with the instant crime.

¶13

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 6.10.2022.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that except the statement of co-accused Udan and confessional statement of victim and recovery of hammer on the pointing out of the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶15

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

¶16

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR but his complicity was revealed during investigation through the second statement of co-accused Udan and thereafter it is alleged that applicant confessed his guilt and on the pointing out of applicant hammer was recovered but the alleged recovered hammer was not containing blood stained

¶17

mark.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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- Deepak Nishad 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 :- 26.5.2023/SKM

¶27

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

Deepak Nishad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Nishad 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

Ramdas @ Bhagat Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

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

Sukhlal Vs State of U.P.

Monis Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Gupta Vs State of U.P.