Dismissed

Arvind Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024/1975/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application filed by Arvind Mishra in a murder case was dismissed by the Court. The applicant claimed false implication and offered alibis, but the Court found nine injuries on the deceased and supported prosecution depositions, deeming bail liable to be rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer dismissed; trial directed to conclude expeditiously.

Arvind Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32946

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1975 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Arvind Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Mishra,Ganesh Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Counter afÏdavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.87 of 2020, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as his marriage was solemnized on 14.5.2014 with daughter of the informant. He further submits that applicant was working as a salesman at a petrol pump which is 7 k.m. away from his house and at the time of incident, he was on duty as his duty period was from 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. He further submits that wife of the applicant was alone in the house, therefore, no one seen the incident. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the proprietor of petrol pump also given an afÏdavit to the Investigating ofÏcer but the same was not considered and charge sheet was filed by the Investigating OfÏcer under Section 302 I.P.C. against the applicant. He also submits that three witnesses of fact have already been examined before the trial court and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Sahiba Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 and submits that Apex Court granted bail on the

¶11

ground of long confinement during the course of trial, therefore, present applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that witness of fact have categorically supported the prosecution version and nine injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the villagers informed to the informant that applicant had killed his daughter and only with the intention to give color of suicide she was hanged and after detail investigation, sufÏcient evidence were found against the applicant, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, nature of offence as well as post-mortem report and the deposition of witnesses, in which, they have supported the prosecution version and nine injuries were also found on the body of the deceased, in such circumstances, the present bail application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed .

¶15

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 Gaurav/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

Abhay Singh Rathore Vs Dr. Santosh Gupta, Chief Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

Raziullah Vs S.B. Shiradhkar, Commissioner of Police, Lko.

Laxmi Kant Mishra Vs Sri Pratap Narayan General Manager Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur

Rizwan Ahmad Vs Saurabh Singh Sub Divisional Officer, Lko.

Anuj Kumar Vs Chakresh Mishra, Superitendent of Police, Sitapur and Another

Sanatan Dharm Sabha Pargana Thru. Newly Elected Chairman Satish Kaushal Bajpai and Another Vs Shri Yogesh Kumar Yadav, Civil Judge Senior Division, Lakhimpur