Allowed

Amit Katheriya @ Sintoo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2023BAIL/4929/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain, J. allowed the bail application of Amit Katheriya in a murder case. Considering the prima facie facts and circumstances, the Single Judge was satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for bail despite the heinous nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.

Amit Katheriya @ Sintoo Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4929 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Katheriya @ Sintoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 61 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC, Police Station Derapur, District Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report. On the basis of the statement of Shyam Kumar suspicion was made on Rakhi-the sister in law (Bhabhi) of the deceased that she was having frequent scuffle with the deceased. Thereafter on the basis of the information of the informer the name of the applicant was disclosed during investigation. Witness Vipin Kumar who happens to be brother of the deceased in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. informed the Investigating Officer that daughter of the deceased and present applicant were seen in compromising position by the deceased, therefore, he had suspicion that the applicant has committed the crime. It is submitted that on the pointing of the applicant the spade (Favda) allegedly used in the crime, having no bloodstains, is shown to be recovered from the house of the co-accused Shivangi. It is submitted that co-accused Shivangi and Rakhi have already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.08.2022 and 20.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33191 of 2022 and 34364 of 2022 respectively. It is submitted that criminal history is duly explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2022 and that in case he is released

¶9

on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶11

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Amit Katheriya @ Sintoo in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶14

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Mohit

¶19

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

Amit Katheriya @ Sintoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Katheriya @ Sintoo 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

Ajay Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Danish @ Arman Vs State of U.P.