Allowed

Anil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023BAIL/9501/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 437/439 CrPC (implied) regarding a murder charge, the High Court allowed the release of the applicant after noting his custody for over five years, undisputed exculpatory evidence, and lack of stable charge witness testimony, imposing specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts with specified conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168264

¶2

Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9501 of 2019 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Singh,Shiv Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶5

Heard Sri Upendra Kr. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2018, S.T. No. 176 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Baniyather, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and one unknown person and according to the FIR, in the intervening night of 18/19.6.2018 when the daughter of the informant alongwith her mother was sleeping in her paternal home then in the night about 9-10 pm, applicant i.e. son in law of the informant alongwith his one associate came on the motorcycle and they have committed the murder of the daughter and wife of the informant by strangulating them.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and there was no occasion for the applicant to commit the murder of his wife and mother in law in the house of the informant.

¶9

He further submitted that admittedly applicant neither resided in the house of the informant nor he was present at his house and except suspicion, there is no other evidence against the applicant in this regard.

¶10

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.6.2018 i.e. for last more than five years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded.

¶11

He further submitted that in the charge sheet, there are as many as 15 prosecution witnesses and out of them only three prosecution

¶12

witnesses could be examined, till date and therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

¶13

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that allegation against the applicant is that he committed the murder of his wife and his mother in law but could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence on record that applicant was witnessed by anybody in the house of the informant and admittedly, his wife and mother in law were murdered in the house of the informant and not in the house of the applicant.

¶15

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than five years and he is not having any criminal history.

¶16

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

¶17

Although, there is allegation against the applicant that he committed the murder of his wife and his mother in law but there is no cogent evidence against him on record and admittedly, both the murders were committed in the house of the informant and applicant neither resided in the house of the informant nor he was seen in or near the house of the informant, at the time of incident.

¶18

Further, applicant in the present matter is in jail since 20.6.2018 i.e. for more than five years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded and only three prosecution witnesses could be examined by the trial court, however, in the charge sheet there are as many as fifteen prosecution witnesses.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶21

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

¶22

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 21.8.2023/Ankita

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Siddiqui Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.