Dismissed

Shani @ Mahendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023BAIL/59942/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application No. 59942 of 2022, the respondent argued that the applicant was implicated in a murder of his co-accused's husband. The Court noted discrepancies in the FIR timing, lack of independent eye-witness evidence, and CDRs showing the applicant was in touch with the murder victim's wife on the day of the incident. Finding no case made for bail, the application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant extended to remain in custody.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59942 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shani @ Mahendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava,Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Srivastava,Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava,Sweta Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2.The prosecution story in brief is that the informant's younger brother namely, Sonu alias Om Prakash Singh was working as a Gangman at Bharwari Railway Station and was residing there, in a railway colony alongwith his wife Laxmi and a daughter. The informant's brother was earlier married with elder sister of Laxmi namely, Gudiya, who died after three years of the marriage, later on, the deceased has solemnised second marriage with Laxmi but after the marriage, her behaviour was not good, often she used to call her male friends in the absence of the deceased, which was resisted by the deceased. She also forced her husband to purchase a PICUP vehicle and the applicant was kept as a driver of the vehicle. The applicant has illicit relation with Laxmi, which was objected by the deceased. On 02.04.2022 in the night, the wife of the deceased namely, Laxmi, his brother-in-law namely, Rakesh as well as accused -applicant Shani have committed murder of the deceased by tying a Gamcha in his neck and his dead body was thrown in river Ganga, thereafter his dead body was found in Sandeepan Ghaat (Ganga), Police Station Kokhraj, District

¶7

Kaushambi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 02.04.2022, whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.04.2022 and that there is no plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. She further submits that the day of incident was 02.04.2022, i.e. Ist day of Navratri and the deceased had gone to take bath in river Ganga, where he slipped and drown in the river. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to post mortem report and has argued that no external injury seen on the person of the deceased, whereas, the cause of death is drowning. She also argued that as per the allegations of the F.I.R. the deceased has been murdered but there is no independent eye-witness or any last seen evidence against the applicant, thus she submits that no offence against the applicant is made out and therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.05.2022, having no criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again

¶10

indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Perusal of the record shows that according to the prosecution story, there is an illicit relation between the applicant and wife of the deceased namely, Laxmi which was objected by the applicant. It is also evident from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the applicant has illicit relation with the co-accused Laxmi which was seen by the applicant. It is also evident from the perusal of the CDRs, report that on the day of incident, the applicant had talked from mobile no. 7985206687 several times to co-accused Laxmi mobile no. 9336884122 but the applicant has kept his mobile no.7985206687 at Kanpur and he with another mobile number 6307299950 had talked with the co-accused Laxmi through conferencing, thus it appears that the applicant had talked the co-accused Laxmi several times by changing his location.

¶12

Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, C.D.Rs., gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for bail has been made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Shani @ Mahndra is rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 S.Ali

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shani @ Mahendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani @ Mahendra 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

Vijay Pratap Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Sah and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Sri Chand Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.