Guddu Kasaudhan Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19667 of 2021

Applicant :- Guddu Kasaudhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tripathi,Ashutosh Mishra,Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Guddu Kasaudhan with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.25 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sikariganj, District Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/ applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also submitted that motive has not been established. The accused has love affair with the deceased and he wanted to marry with her, therefore, no occasion arises to cause the death of the deceased. There is no extra judicial confession. There is no recovery and there is no last seen. He further submitted that it is admitted that on the fateful day the accused visited to the house of the deceased and he carried her son and mother from her house to Urwa Bazar, Village Gajpur, Gorakhpur. He further contends that the confessional statement before the police cannot be considered in view of the provisions of Sections 24 of 25 of the Evidence Act.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. He contends that as the deceased had taken some amount from the accused and his marriage cannot be solemnized with the girl residing at Calcutta. He was adamant to commit murder.

¶9

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant contends that there was no strained relation between the deceased and her family members. No FIR or complaint before this incident has been filed either by the deceased or by her mother or her brother. There is no evidence regarding advancement of money by the applicant to the deceased as the deceased was already

¶10

working in a hospital and was an earning lady. He further contends that there is no medical or scientific evidence. If the deceased was throttled by the accused, the finger prints of the accused could be compared with that available over the neck of the deceased. It is also contended that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 03.03.2021, who has no previous criminal history. His further submission is that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial;

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment;

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail;

¶17

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court;

¶19

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial

¶20

court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.3.2023 Shahroz

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu Kasaudhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Kasaudhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bobeen @ Neeraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lavkush Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Ayub and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another