Dismissed

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2023BAIL/23448/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected a bail application under Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23448 of 2021. The applicant, Sunil, was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, hurt, and affray in a village assault case involving the accidental death of an informant. The court held that the accused's plea of forced intoxication was not established and no case for pr

What did the court decide?

Bail application is rejected. The applicant is not enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23448 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Pankaj Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Sunil with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2020, under 304, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Dibai, District- Bulandshahr, 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 and has falsely been implicated in this case. That neither any motive nor any enmity has been shown the reason of assault. As per the post-mortem only one assault had been made which belies the prosecution version. As a matter of fact, on the date of incident i.e. 27.04.2020 the applicant was intoxicated by his villagers and under the intoxication the application acted awkwardly for which the applicant was taunted by villagers and on objection the alleged incident took place where the villagers started to assault and the informant was also one of the assaulter. The incident was intervened by the deceased wherein she accidentally was it by spade of the informant himself. Therefore, the accused/ applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 29.04.2020, he has no previous criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall 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

¶9

present case.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that it is a case of direct evidence where motive is not necessary. There are several injured eyewitnesses who have deposed in support of the prosecution. The presence of the accused can not be denied as the accused himself has received injuries in the same transaction which has also been admitted by the accused and in this regard a Complaint Case has also been lodged by the accused. Therefore, the accused/ applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail in any manner.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is named accused. The weapon used in the crime has been recovered from the place of occurrence. The only plea that the accused was intoxicated against his will by someone has not been established till date nor such plea of private defence enumerated under Section 84 and 85 of the I.P.C. has been taken by the accused.

¶12

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, nature and manner of commission of offence and evidence regarding the complicity of applicant, no case for bail, at this stage, is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

Order Date :- 15.3.2023 S.Verma

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

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.

Guddu Kasaudhan Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another