Dismissed

Ramu Alias Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2023BAIL/31005/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a bail application filed by the applicant accused of murder. The court held that a coordinate bench already rejected bail for co-accused, providing no reason to deviate. The trial is directed to be concluded within a year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; Trial directed to be concluded within one year.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146759

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31005 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramu Alias Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,A Kumar Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Singh,Suresh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahipal Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and five others and according to the FIR applicant after dragging the father of the informant committed his murder by causing firearm injury to him. It is further mentioned in the FIR that other accused persons also assaulted through wooden sticks and bricks.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and actually informant side was the real aggressor and FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.07.2020 at 22.20 hours but before lodgement of the FIR of the present case another FIR was lodged by one Brijnandan Singh against deceased and his son on 28.07.2020 at 20.55 hours and in the FIR lodged at 20.55 hours the date and time of the incident is same i.e. 28.07.2020 at 7.00 PM in the evening and from the FIR, which was lodged against the deceased and his son it reflects that they caused injuries to one Prashant and Satyendra and due to the injury caused by them Prashant died, therefore, it appears that in the incident informant of

¶11

the present case and his associates were real aggressor but subsequently after lodgement of the FIR against them at 20.55 hours the FIR of the present case was lodged at 22.20 hours against applicant and others.

¶12

He further submits that although bail application of three coaccused persons Rinku @ Rupendra, Golu @ Ritik and Banti have been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2021 but law is settled that there can be no parity of bail rejection order. He produced the common order during the course of argument, which are taken on record and marked as 'A'. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 31.07.2020 i.e. for almost three years.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits that in the FIR there is specific allegation against all the accused persons that they first dragged the deceased and thereafter committed his murder and bail application of three accused persons have already been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the entire facts of the case.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant also submits that although with regard to the same incident FIR was lodged against the deceased and his son even before the lodgement of the FIR of the present case but during the course of trial of that case when father and uncle of the deceased appeared before the trial court then they specifically stated that by fire made by applicant side deceased died. He further submits that as after considering the entire facts of the case bail application of three accused persons Rinku @ Rupendra, Golu @ Ritik and Banti has been dismissed, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶15

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

¶16

Applicant along with five others were named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against the applicant that he along with co-accused persons firstly dragged the deceased and thereafter committed his murder. Although, from the record it reflects that earlier at about 20.55 hours on 28.07.2020 a FIR was lodged against deceased and his son with regard to same incident dated 28.07.2020 occurred at 7 PM but from the bail rejection order of three accused persons Rinku @ Rupendra, Golu @ Ritik and Banti who were also named in the FIR, it appears that co-ordinate Bench

¶17

of this Court discussed the entire facts in detail and thereafter rejected the bail application of these three accused persons on 03.02.2021 therefore, this Court is having no good reason to deviate from the opinion given by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the bail application of three accused persons, who were named in the FIR along with applicant.

¶18

Further, admittedly the trial of the present case is pending and witnesses of fact have already been examined, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

¶20

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that applicant is in jail for almost three years and all the witnesses of fact have already been examined, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a year from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly under the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.7.2023 AK Pandey

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramu Alias Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Alias Sunil Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Giri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Pravesh Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf Khan Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.