Allowed

Arvind Kumar Bhartiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023BAIL/37733/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal FIR for offences under IPC 363 and 366. The court was satisfied despite the serious charges due to lack of external injury, suspicion of natural causes of death, and absence of evidence suggesting the applicant would tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174728

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37733 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Bhartiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Joveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2020 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police StationJhunsi, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the family register, which is part of the case diary, the victim, at the time of the incident was 19 years old. Relevant extract of family register has been annexed as Annexure- 6 to the bail application. It is next contended that the applicant had married the victim on 09.06.2020. The victim died on 18.07.2020. In this regard, the applicant informed the Station House Officer, Police Station- Handia, District- Prayagraj on 19.07.2020. The postmortem of the victim was conducted on the same day. In the opinion of the Doctor, the victim died due to Septicemia. No external injury was seen on the body of the victim. It is contended that no offence under the charged Sections is made out against the applicant. The applicant has remained confined for more than one year, having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made above, and the fact that as per the postmortem report, the victim died due to septicemia and the applicant has remained in jail since 01.07.2022, and there

¶11

is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either temper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Arvind Kumar Bhartiya, involved in aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar Bhartiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Bhartiya 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

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep @ Chhota Vs State of U.P.

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Mukeem Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Yadav Alias Augad Vs State of U.P.