Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130093

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23200 of 2023

Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in case crime No.103 of 2023, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.3.2023 against two accused persons (non applicants) and according to the FIR, two nominated accused persons including landlord of the informant on 13.3.2023 at about 8:30 pm has taken the brother of the informant and thereafter, he did not return back and on 16.3.2023, his dead body was found.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, when the statement of the son of the informant, namely, Anurag was recorded then he introduced the applicant by stating that applicant alongwith nominated accused persons have taken the deceased.

¶10

He further submitted that if applicant was also present at spot and had taken the deceased alongwith nominated accused persons Mohit and Jitendra then he must have been named in the FIR as in the FIR, it has been specifically stated that nominated accused persons Mohit and Jitendra had taken the deceased and this fact was informed to the informant by his son i.e. Anurag. He further submitted that therefore, this fact clearly suggest that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He next submitted that as per prosecution when the applicant was arrested then on his pointing out, a gamcha (a type of cloth) was recovered but merely

¶11

on the basis of recovery of a cloth, it cannot be said that applicant participated in the present matter.

¶12

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.3.2023, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the statement of the son of the informant, i.e. Anurag it appears that applicant alongwith nominated accused persons had taken the deceased but could not dispute the fact deceased was taken on 13.3.2023 and FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.3.2023 i.e. after about a week, after recovery of the dead body and in the meantime, not even any missing FIR was lodged and in the FIR applicant was not named and except the statement of Anurag and recovery of gamcha on the pointing out of the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶14

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

¶15

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and name of the applicant was revealed during investigation through the statement of Anurag, the son of the informant but from perusal of the FIR, it appears that it was lodged against landlord Mohit and one Jitendra on the information furnished by Anurag, son of the informant, therefore, it appears that at the time of lodgement of the FIR, Anurag did not disclose the name of applicant to the informant.

¶16

Further, although there is allegation against the applicant that on his pointing out a gamcha was recovered but gamcha is a type of cloth and merely on the basis of recovery of a gamcha, it cannot be said, at this stage that applicant committed murder of the deceased.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant- Arjun, 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

¶20

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 anti-social activity.14.

¶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 :- 3.7.2023

¶27

Ankita

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Chunna Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Asgar Vs State of U.P.

Joginder Alias Andahwa Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jitu Vs State of U.P.