Allowed

Krishna Murari and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2023BAIL/56762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by two applicants in a criminal trial. The court granted bail based on the principle of parity, noting that similarly placed co-accused had already been released on bail, despite opposition regarding a prior non-cognizable report.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each, subject to specified conditions.

Krishna Murari and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56762 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Murari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Shri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.132 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that similarly placed co-accused persons Ram Karan and Ayodhya Prasad have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.1.2023 and 12.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 41411 of 2022 and 43943 of 2022, respectively. The applicants are languishing in jail since 24.6.2022 and 8.8.2022, respectively, having no criminal history to their credit. He further submitted that since the role of the applicants is identical to that of co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, they are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that there is an NCR lodged against the applicant in the year, 2007 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. as such he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in the case of NCR the complaint case has to be filed and the same has not been filed as such. The applicant is entitled for bail as he has no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence

¶12

on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation , MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 , and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let the applicants- Krishna Murari and Shyam Babu involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

(v) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.3.2023/ Vikas

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Murari and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Murari and Another 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

Rusta Alias Ruchita Alias Raka Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulshan @ Shishupal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. Adn 3 Others

Haripal Alias Nanhe Lal Vs State of U.P.