Dismissed

Harkesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2023BAIL/43408/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court rejected the petition filed by Harkesh in a murder case. The court found that no new grounds were presented and held that no case for bail was made out, directing the trial court to conclude within four months.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for enlargement on bail rejected; trial directed to conclude within four months.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107791

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43408 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Harkesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari,Ajay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.1741 of 2017 arising out of S.T. No.212 of 2018, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District- Bulandshahr prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected vide order dated 18.12.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54735 of 2019.

¶9

It is submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the present applicant is not named in the first information report. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. No motive was assigned to the present applicant to commit murder of the deceased, Narendra. Recovery of one brick, one mobile and one Saree has been shown from the possession of the applicant which is false and planned. It is further submitted that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 29.10.2017 having one criminal history relating to N.D.P.S. Act in

¶10

which he has been acquitted and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that no new ground has been taken in the present bail application while all the aspects have already been considered in the first bail application. Trial Court has submitted the status of the trial. Two formal witnesses, one Investigating Officer and one witness of Inquest remain to be examined.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected .

¶13

Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding on the merit and shall not prejudice the trial.

¶14

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within four months.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 SP/-

¶16

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

Harkesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harkesh 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

Vijay Bind Vs State of U.P.

Nem Chand Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Om Kumar @ Gyasi Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.