Allowed

Ram Bhajan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023BAIL/19434/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application in a murder case (IPC 302) where the sole witness was the applicant's son. The court held that no incriminating firearm was recovered and the applicant had no criminal history, ruling that he had made out a case for bail despite the severity of the charge.

What did the court decide?

Application to enlarge the applicant on bail was allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19434 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Bhajan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 212 of 2020, under Sections 302 of IPC, Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that nothing incriminating firearm has been recovered on the pointing of the applicant. It is submitted that except the informant, there is no witness of fact mentioned in the charge sheet while the witness of fact PW-1 is examined as Rinku who is the son of the applicant. PW-1 -Rinku has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, there is no chance of conviction of applicant in the present case. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 09.08.2020 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that as per the version of the first information report the applicant named in the FIR and specific role has been assigned to applicant for firing upon deceased Santosh, resultantly Santosh died on the spot. It is further submitted that the other witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Ram Bhajan in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶11

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶12

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶13

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 Mohit

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Bhajan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bhajan 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

Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Shankar @ Ravi Shankar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Jay Shankar Seth @ Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu Alias Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others