Dismissed

Neeraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2023BAIL/59024/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application regarding a murder case under IPC Sections 302, 323, 504, and 506. The applicant argued the FIR was fabricated and the weapon was planted, while the State pointed to eyewitness testimony and recovered evidence. The court held that no case for bail was made out at this stage and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected as no case for bail is made out.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59024 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Pankaj Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Neeraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2022, under 302, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts as the relation between the first informant and the applicant was not cordial due to ill treatment of the deceased by the first informant. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. On the date of alleged incident, the first informant was scolding and beating the deceased who while saving himself got badly hit with the brick wall and sustained the fatal injury. The applicant himself had taken the deceased to the C.H.C. So far as the injury of first informant are concerned, as per the medical examination report, no injury was found to be caused by axe as alleged by the first informant. The recovery is planted one as there is no other independent witness of the alleged recovery.Therefore, the accused/ applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 22.08.2022, he has no previous criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that it is a case of direct evidence in which the informant who is wife of the accusedapplicant and mother of the deceased has also received serious injuries. The informant and mother of the accused who had witnessed the incident, have supported the prosecution version in their statements and have stated that since the accused was step father of the deceased, he used to have beat the deceased regularly and he was not being properly nourished by the accused. The presence of the first informant can not be denied by the accused as he also has caused serious injury to her. Therefore, the accused/ applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail in any manner.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is named accused. The weapon used in the crime has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. The statements of the first informant and mother of the accused-applicant totally support the prosecution case.

¶11

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, nature and manner of commission of offence and evidence regarding the complicity of applicant, no case for bail, at this stage, is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

Order Date :- 20.3.2023 S.Verma

¶14

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

Neeraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Ramshankar Vs State of U.P.

Mehraj Vs State of U.P.

Nazir @ Babu Vs State of U.P.

Amir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Hareesh Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.