Allowed

Santosh Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023BAIL/32648/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to the applicant Santosh Prajapati accused of attempted murder and forgery under Sections 307 and 459 IPC. The court found the incident involved unknown persons and the knife recovery lacked independent witness corroboration, deeming it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on the case merit.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attending trial, not tampering with witnesses, and avoiding illegal activities.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180519

¶2

Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32648 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶4

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The accused- applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 83 of 2023, under Sections 307, 459 I.P.C., Police Station Mandrak, DistrictAligarh.

¶6

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is neither named in the FIR nor in the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the injured Asha Varma and the first informant he is named. The name of the applicant was for the first time disclosed in the confessional statement of co accused Ranu @ Dhairya after 2 days of the incident. Except the confessional statement of co accused, there is no other evidence against the applicant. A false recovery of a knife is shown on the pointing out of the applicant which is said to be made from an open place. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. There is general allegation in the FIR. No specific role of assault with knife is assigned to the applicant in the FIR. There is no criminal history to the credit of the applicant. Co accused Ranu @ Dhairya has already been granted bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.5.2023.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant and submitted that injured Tarun Varma who is said to be injured in this incident, had to remain in the hospital for three days with regard to the injuries inflicted in this incident. A knife is recovered at the instance of the present applicant. Two stabbed injuries are found on the person of injured Asha Varma, hence, the prayer is made to reject the bail application of the applicant.

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it is found that the incident is dated 17.4.2023 wherein along with one named accused 3-4 unknown

¶9

persons are alleged to have committed the offence. But neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the first informant Sumit Varma and injured Asha Varma, recorded on 16.4.2023, the applicant has been named. In the confessional statement of co accused Ranu, his name has been disclosed for the first time. This confessional statement of the accused has no evidentiary value. The knife is said to have been recovered at the instance of the present applicant but in the FIR no specific role of assaulting with knife is assigned to the present applicant. Co accused Ranu @ Dhairya and Golu @ Kaushal Gautam having similar role have been granted bail by this court. Regarding recovery of knife, no independent witness has been shown in the recovery memo. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.5.2023.

¶10

Perusing the record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it a fit case of bail.

¶11

The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Santosh Prajapati who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.9.2023/Gss

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Prajapati 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

Rajesh Goshwami and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Lal Kori Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aun Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another