Allowed

Kannu Goswami @ Vidyaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024/2954/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 307, and 120-B IPC. The applicant, already in jail, sought release, noting that co-accused had been granted bail earlier. The court found no prima facie material impeding bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Kannu Goswami @ Vidyaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70692

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2954 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kannu Goswami @ Vidyaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh,Manoj Kumari Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Smt. Manoj Kumari Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anant Pratap Singh, learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 307, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Kaisarganj, District- Bahraich.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 18.03.2023 against 5 persons, not including the applicant and two unnamed persons, alleging that the informant's father had gone to see an agricultural land at about 11:00-12:00 hours on 06.03.2023. All the named accused persons were present there with an intention of killing the informant's father. Two unnamed persons riding a motorcycle fired at the informant's father causing bullet injury on the right side of his chest. The informant's father was taken to the Community Health Centre, Kaisarganj, from where he was transferred to a trauma Centre, Lucknow.

¶10

In the application filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not criminal history.

¶11

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he reiterated the FIR version but in the additional statement of the informant, he stated that the applicant was also involved in a conspiracy for commission of the offence.

¶12

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith some statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. The

¶13

medical documents annexed with the counter affidavit indicates that the injured was treated non-operational and he was discharged from the hospital on 20.03.2024. No material has been annexed with the counter affidavit which may prima facie establish involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence.

¶14

Co-accused persons, namely, Dileep Goswami and Shani Goswami have been granted bail by means of an order dated 22.08.2023 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bial Application No.10452 of 2023 whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2023.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the two co-accused persons have already been granted bail in the present case and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2023, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Kannu Goswami @ Vidyaram be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 -Amit K-

¶21

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

Kannu Goswami @ Vidyaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannu Goswami @ Vidyaram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yash Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shahnawaz Ahmad Vs Gov. of India Thru. Assistant Dir. Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal Office Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava Vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ankur Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Abhinav Kumar Gupta @ Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.