Dismissed

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023BAIL/49670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected. The learned Single Judge held that despite the applicant's defense of absence from the scene, it was vague and unsupported by evidence. Given the nature of the homicidal death (strangulation), bail is not granted. The trial is directed to be concluded within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195295

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49670 of 2018

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Tiwari,Hemant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 642 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to the FIR, applicant strangulated his wife on 23.07.2018 in his room.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged by the landlord of the applicant and he was not an eye-witness. He further submitted that actually at the time of incident, applicant was not present at his home and in his absence, who committed the murder of his wife, he is not even aware. He further submitted that there was absolutely no motive of the applicant to commit the murder of his wife.

¶11

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 24.07.2018 i.e. for more than five years. He further submitted that till date, only three prosecution witnesses could be examined including informant of the case and informant, who lodged the FIR i.e. landlord of the applicant, did not support the version of the FIR.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his

¶13

wife died due to throttling, therefore, it is a case of homicidal death and applicant failed to explain the homicidal death of his wife, therefore, he should not be released on bail.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Although, it appears that applicant is in jail for more than five years but he is the husband of the deceased and his wife died due to throttling, therefore, it is a case of homicidal death.

¶16

However, learned counsel for the applicant has taken a defence that at the time of incident, applicant was not present at his home but defence taken by the applicant appears to be vague and there is no evidence in this regard, which can show that applicant was not present at his home.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected .

¶19

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.

¶20

However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for more than five years, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly as per the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.,without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 KK Patel

¶22

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

Mukesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Netra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Shahid Jamal Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kori Vs State of U.P.

Ramjeet Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Vishwakarma @ Chiraiya Doctor Vs State of U.P.

Ghanshyam Pathak Vs State of U.P.