Dismissed

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Gov. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024/40/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected the second bail application of an undertrial prisoner charged with culpable homicide. The court found no fresh grounds beyond reliance on prior delays, held the application devoid of merit, and directed trial court expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20719

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Gov. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this second bail application in case crime No.247 of 2021 under section 304 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, district Gonda, the first having been rejected vide order dated 20.4.2022 passed in Bail Application No.14153 of 2021, and perused the record.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that two prosecution witnesses have been examined. There is delay in the trial. The applicant is in jail since 25.10.2021. It is a case of circumstantial evidence.

¶8

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased was residing with the applicant and enticed by him. She was suffering from anemia and hepatitis. She was got admitted in the hospital and during hospitalization on 18.6.2021, she died. Upon suspicion, the family members reported the matter to the police. The deceased during post mortem and autopsy examination is found to have received five injuries, out of which, four are contusion and one lacerated injury, including fracture of ribs from 5' to 10' right side. All along this time, the deceased was with the applicant. It is the applicant who can reveal the truth as to how the deceased died. The burden to prove his innocence in such offence is upon the applicant as provided under section 106 Indian Evidence Act.

¶9

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that except the ground that two prosecution witnesses have been examined and there is delay in trial, coupled with the period of incarceration, i.e. since 25.10.2021, no fresh ground has been pressed into service, the bail application is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.

¶10

5. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶11

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.3.2024

¶13

kkb/

¶14

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

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Gov. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Gov. 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

Danish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

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

Raj Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Ritik Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Others