Allowed

Mintu Maurya @ Shubham Maurya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023BAIL/38902/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a Section 307 IPC case. Despite the lack of FIR nomenclature for the applicant, the Court noted that the co-accused was on bail and no reasonable apprehension of tampering was shown, granting bail subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail against a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear, not tamper, or pressurize witnesses.

Mintu Maurya @ Shubham Maurya Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193446

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38902 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mintu Maurya @ Shubham Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State 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. 190 of 2023 under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police StationSarpataha, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he has been witnessed by any witness committing the alleged crime. The applicant has been implicated in this case only on hearsay evidence of one Durgesh who informed the informant that it was the the applicant who fired at him. It is next contended that there is no opinion of the doctor that the injury was fatal as it hit the informant on his left leg. The applicant is in jail since 21.6.2023, in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has 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 the applicant has remained confined for almost two months, and the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, 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.

¶11

Let the applicant- Mintu Maurya @ Shubham Maurya , 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:

¶12

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 S.Verma

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mintu Maurya @ Shubham Maurya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu Maurya @ Shubham Maurya 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

Ranjit Kumar Jain Vs Jai Karan

Shiv Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Prakash Dheemar Vs State of U.P.

Wasim Vs State of U.P.

Arun Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Khan Vs State of U.P.