Allowed

Suraj @ Ballu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/27855/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for an accused facing murder charges based on circumstantial evidence. Noting the applicant's youth, lack of criminal record, and long incarceration since the FIR was lodged over three years prior with many witnesses unexamined, the court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and lead a clean life.

Suraj @ Ballu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131794

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27855 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj @ Ballu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

List is being revised, none appeared on behalf of the informant, however learned AGA is present.

¶7

Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S. B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2019, sessions trial no. 102 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Ghughuli, District Maharajganj during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant on 5.12.2019 under Section 302 IPC and according to the FIR applicant was having affair with the daughter of the informant and marriage of his daughter was fixed somewhere else and when his daughter had gone on natural call then she did not return and her dead body was found. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant has committed her murder.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness and only on the basis of the fact that applicant was having love affair with the deceased, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits that the when statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he although stated

¶11

that a day before applicant threatened that if marriage of the deceased would be performed anywhere else then he will commit her murder but no such fact has been mentioned by the informant in the FIR. He further submits although during investigation when applicant was arrested then it is alleged that a blood stained knife was recovered from his possession and as per the FSL report on the knife human blood was found.

¶12

He further submits that applicant was a young lad aged about 18 years at the time of incident and in the present matter he is in jail since 06.12.2019 i.e. for about last three and half years and in the chargesheet there are as many as 18 prosecution witnesses and till date only 6 witnesses could be examined and therefore as many as 12 prosecution witnesses still remain to examine and it appears that trial of the case cannot be completed within short period of time therefore considering the long incarceration of the applicant for more than 3 years he may be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that when the applicant was arrested then from his possession blood stained knife was recovered and as per the FSL report, which has been annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by the State, human blood was found on it but he could not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and no one has witnessed the real incident and applicant is in jail for more than 3 and half years and even till date only 6 prosecution witnesses could be examined out of 18 witnesses.

¶14

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

¶15

From the perusal of the record it reflects it is a case of

¶16

circumstantial evidence and except threat and recovery of knife there is no other evidence against the applicant, however on the knife human blood was found but it is not on record that blood was of deceased.

¶17

10.Further, at the time of incident applicant was hardly eighteen and half years of age and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail for more than 3 and half years and in the chargesheet there are as many as 18 prosecution witnesses and out of them only 6 witnesses could be examined till date.

¶18

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant - Suraj @ Ballu 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

¶25

prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

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.

¶27

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within 8 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, strictly as per Section 309 Cr.P.C. if there is no legal impediment.

¶28

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 Vipul

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj @ Ballu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj @ Ballu 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

Asgar Vs State of U.P.

Joginder Alias Andahwa Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P.

Digvijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Meetesh @ Neetesh Vs State of U.P. and Another