Allowed

Hareesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2023BAIL/59164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Hareesh, charged with murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that despite severe charges, a case for bail is made out as co-accused were already granted bail and the applicant is innocent with no prior criminal history. Bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Hareesh released on bail in Case Crime No. 379 of 2024 subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering or making adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59164 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Hareesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Fatma Anjum,Syed Ahmed Faizan,Zaheer Asghar

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Preet pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Fatma Anjum, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pankaj Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Hareesh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 379 of 2022 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. Police Station- Khekda, District- Baghpat, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The allegations are general in nature and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant or any of the accused persons. The applicant is alleged to have armed with the fire arm however there was no injury on the person of the deceased. In the post-mortem, four injuries were found on the deceased and the cause of death is reported to be 'Cerebral damage as a result of anti mortem head injury. Identically placed coaccused Upendra, Dileep have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.2.2023 and 22.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7434 of 2023 and 1911 of 2023, respectively. It has been submitted that the accused/applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 05.09.2022.

¶8

Lastly, it has been submitted that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will 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, however, he could not controvert the fact of granting bail to the other similarly placed co-accused.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions and the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The bail application is, thus, allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Hareesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial;

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment;

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail;

¶15

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court;

¶17

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.3.2023 S.Verma

¶21

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

Hareesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareesh 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

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.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.