Allowed

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 May 2023BAIL/45021/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sandeep accused of culpable homicide and provocation under Sections 323, 304, 504 IPC. The court distinguished the applicant's role from that of co-accused Akash who caused the fatal injury and granted bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was allowed bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102970

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45021 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Qasim,Ayub Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Sandeep, who is involved in Case Crime No. 240 of 2022, under Sections 323, 304, 504 IPC, police station Khurja Dehat, district Bulandshahr, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution case, in brief, informant Nem Singh lodged a first information report on 21.07.2022 against Banti, Akash and present applicant Sandeep Kumar for the offence under Sections 323, 308, 504 IPC making allegation inter alia of causing injury to his father Khem Singh against Akash and attributed the role of causing injury on him to the present applicant Sandeep Kumar. In the F.I.R., role of catching hold has been assigned to co-accused Banti when the applicant was causing injury on the informant. It is the case of the prosecution that injured Khem Singh and informant both were taken to the hospital on 17.07.2022 and they were medically examined but Khem Singh died on 21.07.2022 during treatment.

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that specific role of causing injury to the deceased has been attributed to co-accused Akash. As per injury report of informant Nem Singh, he has received four injuries which are simple in nature except injury no. 1, which was kept under observation but no x-ray was done. The co-accused Banti has been granted

¶10

bail vide order dated 10.11.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45624 of 2022. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2022 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that in this case, Khem Singh (father of the informant) has lost his life and role of causing injury to the deceased Khem Singh has been attributed to Akash whereas role of causing injury to the informant has been assigned to present applicant Sandeep, in which, informant has received four injuries, out of which, three are simple in nature. There is no dispute that with regard to injury no. 1, no x-ray was done, therefore, nature of injury no. 1 cannot be ascertained at this stage. The case of present applicant is distinguishable from the case of coaccused Akash.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Sandeep , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶18

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Shubham

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Surendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramkripal Vs State of U.P.

Shribhagwan Alias Munna Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Vipul and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Bind and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Bind Vs State of U.P.