Mukesh v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a bail application labeled CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 38956 of 2023, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the bail plea of Mukesh, a named accused in a murder and abduction case involving firearm injuries.
What did the court decide?
Bail application rejected; applicant liable to remain in custody.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200959
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38956 of 2023
Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Ravi Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Mukesh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.107 of 2023, under Sections 365, 302, 201, 34 IPC, police station Crossing Republic, district Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 21.03.2023, a delayed FIR dated 22.03.2023 was lodged by the first informant, namely, Rinku (brother of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.0107 of 2023, under Sections 365, 34 IPC, police station Crossing Republic, district Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid FIR, three persons, namely, Pappan, Mukesh (applicant herein) and Bhura (brother of Mukesh) have been nominated as named accused, whereas two unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused jointly charged with murder and abduction is entitled to bail when recovery is based on joint pointing out.
Whether the complicity of an accused based on circumstantial evidence satisfies Supreme Court parameters for bail refusal.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mukesh
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Rajeev Misra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/38956/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court