The court considered a bail application in a murder case. Arguments for and against bail were heard, and the application was dismissed.
prayer for bail is refused; application is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58504 of 2022
Applicant :- Nand Gopal Soni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramnath,Arun Kumar Singh,Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Chandra Yadav,Sanatan Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard Sri Ramnath, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in case crime No. 322 of 2022, under sections 302, 394, 411, 34 IPC, P.S. Koraon, District Prayagraj.
The prosecution story in brief is that the grand father of the informant was sleeping under the boundary wall but when he not arise up in the morning, the family members of the informant come and see that grand father of the informant was lying dead and his death has been caused by some unknown persons by sharp edge weapon or lathi danda blows.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity and village partibandi. Further contended that in the present case applicant is not named in the first information report lodged by the informant. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant, also no recovery of incriminating article has been made from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. There is no eye witness account of the alleged incident and lastly argued that applicant is in jail since 20.08.2022. The criminal history of the applicant has already been explained.
Per contra learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State rebutted the above arguments stating that although the applicant-accused is not named in the FIR. The deceased has died under the boundary wall in the night of 19/20, the death has been caused by sharp edged weapon, During investigation one statement of Raju has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein it is
stated that in that night at about 10.30 P.M. in the torch light, he had seen the accused Lala Pal and Nand Gopal Soni and also in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the witness Shaukat has stated that on the noise of barking he woke up and saw in the torch light to the above named accused. The same version has also been stated by one witness Naushad. Also from the possession of the accused persons Rs. 7,000/-, country made pistol and cartridge have been recovered and the gravity of the offence is too much, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail
Having considered the submissions raised by the counsel for the applicant-accused and the objections raised by learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State, gravity and severity of the offence and conduct of the applicant-accused, I am of the view that prima facie at this stage grounds are not sufficient to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
RPD
Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail in a case under sections 302, 394, 411, 34 IPC.
Whether non-naming of the applicant in the FIR and lack of direct evidence are sufficient grounds for bail.
Nand Gopal Soni
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
