Allowed

Megu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023BAIL/29210/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Megu, an accused in a murder and related offences FIR lodged over 11 years after the incident, citing the delay, absence of prosecution witnesses, and existing criminal history. The applicant was released on a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to appearance, non-interference, and non-indulgence in criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189751

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29210 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Megu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Kumar Pandey,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri I.D. Mishra Advocate holding brief of Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1896 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, DistrictGhaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 08.09.2018 against applicant and three others and according to the FIR, since 19.04.2007 the brother of the informant was absent from his duty and in this regard a missing report was lodged and when applicant was arrested in the year 2018 in some other case then he confessed his guilt with regard to present case and from his possession a Titan watch of the deceased was also recovered.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case in which FIR was lodged after more than 11 years and applicant has been made accused after 11 years on the basis of confession of the applicant and recovery of a watch from his possession, which allegedly belonged to the deceased. He further submitted that except the confessional statement of the applicant and recovery of watch, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶10

He further submitted that apart for the present case although, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases and out of three cases, one case is of Section 302 IPC but criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 07.09.2018 i.e. for more than five years and till date not even single prosecution witness

¶11

could be examined.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA although, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

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

¶14

Although, it appears that apart form the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of three other cases and out of three cases, one case is of Section 302 IPC but FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 11 years on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant and recovery of a watch, which allegedly belonged to the deceased and except these two evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶15

Law is settled, bail application should not be dismissed merely on the basis of criminal history of accused person, if otherwise case of bail is made out.

¶16

Further, applicant is in jail since 07.09.2018 i.e. for more than five years and till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

¶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- Megu 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:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social

¶23

activity.

¶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 :- 3.10.2023 KK Patel

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Megu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megu 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

Smt Beboo @ Baby Vs State of U.P.

Amit Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Param Singh Alias Premchand Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav Vs State of U.P.

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Soni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others