Allowed

Harikesh v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC30 May 2024/14192/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Harikesh in a criminal case alleging attack with a firearm. The High Court held that since the applicant was not named in the FIR and faced insufficient evidentiary links, he should be released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Harikesh released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 196 of 2023 on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each.

Harikesh Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41678

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14192 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Harikesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar,Ashok Kumar Singh,Prashant Shukla,Rahul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arshad Jameel,Mohd. Salman

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary afÏdavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that two unknown persons came on a motor-cycle and attacked the husband of the informant and fired upon him. One of the fire arm injury was on the right hand and the other was on the chest.

¶9

4 . The counsel for the applicant argues that admittedly the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, the applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon the recovery and a confessional statement, which is contained in annexure no. 5, recovery of weapon allegedly used is not in the presence of any independent witness. It is further argued that during the trial, the informant has given a statement and has not implicated the applicant. He further argued that he applicant is in custody since 22.04.2023 and has no criminal history, as such, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

6. Considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and there is no process of identification to identify and link the applicant with the offence in question, the confessional statement has no evidentiary value and the recovery is not in the presence of any independent witness and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

7. Let the applicant Harikesh be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 196 of 2023, under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 Arun

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harikesh v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sameer Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Ashok Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Aftab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.