Allowed

Mohak Shastri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/298/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed bail applications in a murder case. Despite a confessional statement linking the accused to the offence, the court noted recovery of cash was uncorroborated and the trial suffered inordinate delay, deeming the balance sheet of the accused favorably tilted towards grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant ordered to be released on personal bond and two sureties.

Mohak Shastri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18902

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 298 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohak Shastri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi,Prashant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in ST No.1026 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0540 of 2019 under sections 302, 393, 120-B/34 IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that two unknown persons had caused firearm injury to the son of the informant. It was also stated that the son of the informant was carrying a bag which contained substantial cash of Rs.1,92,900/-. Subsequently, based upon the confessional statement and the statement of the co-accused, the applicant was linked with the offence in question.

¶9

In the confessional statement of the applicant, it was admitted by the applicant that he was trying to snatch the bag and when resisted, the co-accused Tinku Nepali caused the firearm injury. There is another statement of the servant of the deceased against the applicant who had stated that he had seen three persons including the applicant of doing a recce of the area on days before the date of incident.

¶10

The counsel for the applicant argues that based upon the confessional statement, the applicant was linked with the offence in question. He argues that the recovery of Rs.6000/- is also not in the presence of any independent witnesses. The applicant is in custody since 21.07.2019. As regards the criminal antecedents pointed out by the AGA, it is argued that out of the total eight cases, apart from the present case, the applicant is on bail in five cases and the bail orders have already been filed.

¶11

Considering the materials against the applicant being the confessional statement and there being no recovery from the applicant except cash of Rs.6000/-, which is not in the presence of any independent witnesses and the same was not a cash belonging to the deceased as in the FIR itself, it was stated that

¶12

the cash was with the informant coupled with the fact that inordinate delay in the trial as the applicant is in custody since 21.07.2019, a case for bail is made out. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Mohak Shastri be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.3.2024

¶18

VNP/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohak Shastri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohak Shastri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

Indresh Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jyoti Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akshay Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sajid Ali @ Munna and Others vs U.P. Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Anjesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Nanga @ Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.