Dismissed

Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023BAIL/49160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49160 of 2022 concerning a murder charge under Section 302 IPC, the High Court dismissed the bail application. The court held that with 70% burn injuries and a dying declaration implicating the applicant, no grounds existed for bail release, noting that the doctor's certificate issue is a matter for trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant not released on bail.

Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49160 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Raj Kumar @ Raju, who is involved in Case Crime No. 263 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case in brief, informant Suman Devi who is wife of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. on 09.10.2021 against Raj Kumar (present applicant), Akash and Jeetu alleging inter-alia that on 04.10.2021 accused persons, by pouring petrol on her husband, set him ablaze.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, incident took place on 04.10.2021 and the deceased died on 08.10.2021. Thereafter first information report was lodged on 09.10.2021 on false and concocted facts because there was a dispute of land between the deceased and accused persons. It is next argued that after the occurrence of the incident, information was given by the Corporator to the police stating that one person namely Suresh, by pouring oil, set himself on fire. On the information, police reached at the spot and collected the relevant material found at the spot but till that time, name of the applicant was not surfaced. Later on, complicity of the applicant came into light in the dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 04.10.2021 but the same cannot be take into consideration as before recording the dying declaration of the deceased, doctor has not given the certificate that the injured is conscious and

¶9

capable to speak. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 21.10.2021.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the deceased has specified the role of the applicant in his dying declaration by contending that he has poured petrol on him and co-accused Akash lit the fire with a matchstick. Doctor has issued required certificate also. It is next argued that bail application of co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11928 of 2022 against whom, no allegation of pouring petrol or setting the deceased ablaze has been levelled by the deceased.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. The deceased has received burn injuries to the extent of 70%, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not in a fit position to get his dying declaration recorded. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant regarding certificate of the doctor as noted above is concerned, the same is a matter of trial.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, nature of injury, dying declaration of the deceased and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Saurabh

¶16

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

Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar @ Raju 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

Ankur Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Kumar Bhardwaj @ Shani Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others