Dismissed

Mayank v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 May 2023BAIL/9073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court rejected a bail application filed by Mayank in a murder case involving the strangulation of his mother. The court held that as the son of the deceased who lived with her for two months before her death, there was a presumption against him, and he failed to explain the circumstances of her death.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; observations limited to disposal of bail and no bearing on merits of trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104230

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9073 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mayank Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Neeraj,Raj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vikrant Neeraj, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.173 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandramau, District Hathras during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under Section 302 IPC and according to the FIR on 12.4.2022 informant-the village guard received an information that applicant has committed the murder of his mother and thereafter when he arrived at the house of applicant then found that dead body of the deceased was lying in the house and thereafter applicant was found in the village and with the help of two persons, informant, the Guard of the Village, has taken him to the Police Station.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant did not commit alleged murder and at the time of incident he was not at his home. He further submits that applicant was in the field.

¶10

He further submits that even as per prosecution, applicant and his brother resided in the State of Haryana and it appears that only due to property dispute after committing murder his

¶11

rivals implicated him in the present matter.

¶12

He further submits that there is no evidence on record except the fact that for the last about 2 months applicant was residing with his mother.

¶13

He next submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.4.2022, i.e., for the last about more than one year.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and admittedly applicant for the last two months was residing with the deceased, i.e., his mother and, therefore, there is presumption against him under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act but applicant failed to discharge his burden and the post mortem report of the deceased shows that she was strangulated, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is the son of the deceased. Although even as per prosecution applicant and other sons of the deceased resided at Panipat (Harayana) but according to the prosecution for the last 2 months applicant started to reside with the deceased in his native village and this fact has not been denied by applicant.

¶17

Post mortem report of the deceased shows that it is a case of homicidal death and deceased died due to strangulation and applicant failed to explain the murder of his mother.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances

¶19

discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.5.2023 SKM

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mayank v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank 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

Aadil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanny Tomar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhriguram Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Chhotu Trivedi @ Ashutosh Vs State of U.P.

Bihari Soni@ Prince Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.