Dismissed

Ratan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023BAIL/4467/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a bail application in a case involving the double murder of two individuals alleged to be an honour killing. The High Court rejected the bail plea, holding the case unfit for bail due to the serious nature of the offence and the applicant's role in summoning the deceased. The court directed the trial court to decide the case within one year.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected; no bail was granted to the applicant.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4467 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ratan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Brij Lal Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.345 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have called the son of the informant on 06.11.2022 at 3:00 AM to his house. The applicant and his family members suspected that the son of the informant Ramkaran and the sister of the applicant were having illicit relations, as such they had put both of them to death and thrown their dead bodies near Khanta Nagla. The informant and his family members reached the said place and after undertaking a frantic search, found the dead bodies of both the person there, as such the FIR was instituted the same day at 10:54 AM.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said place of recovery of the dead bodies is seven kilometers from the village of the applicant and the informant. There is no evidence of any person having seen the applicant and other co-accused persons committing the said offence of double murder. Learned counsel has further stated that there are ample inconsistencies in the statement of the informant and his wife Smt. Janki Devi. Learned counsel has further stated that the sister of the applicant herself has been put to death and he himself has been wrongly made an accused in the FIR. The allegations of honour killing are false. The recovery, if any, has been made at the pointing out of co-accused persons Nitin @ Taniya and Neetu. There is no criminal history of

¶10

the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 31.12.2022.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it was the applicant who had come to the house of the informant and called his son and taken him along to his house. The applicant and other co- persons are stated to have beaten them up and caused the death owing to the said illicit relationship between the two youths. Under these circumstances, it being a case of honour killing, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the very fact that it was the applicant who had called the deceased person at his house and taken him alongwith him and also the fact that the honour killing of two young persons has been done, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶13

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶14

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.4.2023

¶17

Ravi Kant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ratan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Salim Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and Others

Narendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Wahaj Vs State of U.P.