Allowed

Anuj Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/4504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed two concurrent bail applications from Anuj Sahu and Shaktimaan Sahu in a conspiracy murder case. The court granted bail citing the lack of criminal history and the weak evidentiary basis of the co-accused's confession linking the applicants to the crime.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail in FIR/Case No.29 of 2024 subject to personal bond and two reliable sureties each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64394

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4504 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shakti Krishna Chaube,Pragati Tiwari,Prashant Dubey,Praveen Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

WITH

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5203 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Shaktimaan Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Tripathi, Pragati Tiwari, Prashant Dubey, Shakti Krishna Chaube Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶9

Both the bail applications arise out of the same case crime no.29 of 2024 and sections and the role assigned to the applicants are similar, as such, both are being decided by this common order.

¶10

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

¶11

The accused-applicants seek bail in FIR/Case Crime No.29 of 2024 under sections 302, 201, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.

¶12

The FIR in question was lodged on 21.01.2024 alleging that the son of the informant namely Vikrant had left home and did not return back and his phone was coming switched off and subsequently, a burnt body was recovered for which an apprehension was expressed that the said body was that of son of the informant. No one was named in the FIR.

¶13

Subsequently, during investigation, the said person Vikrant, who was alleging to have killed by unknown person, was recovered and his statement was recorded wherein he admitted that as he had certain dues to be paid, a conspiracy was hatched

¶14

by the said Vikrant along with the applicants that they would kill some unknown person and burn his body and make it appear that Vikrant has died and thereafter the said Vikrant would live without anyone suspecting and, anyone seeking to recover any dues along with one lady with which the said Vikrant was having an affair.

¶15

The confessional statement of Vikrant is on record wherein he admitted to have killed that unknown person by throttling with the use of a MufÒer in which allegedly the applicants had helped him.

¶16

The submission of the counsel for the applicants is that apart from the confessional statement of the said co-accused Vikrant, there is no material to link the applicants with the offence in question, even otherwise, Vikrant had admitted to have committed the offence in question and the role of applicants is that of a conspirator. It is further argued that the applicants are in custody since 09.02.2024 and have no criminal history.

¶17

Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that in terms of the confessional statement, which has been filed along with the Counter AfÏdavit, allegedly Vikrant with the help of the applicants had killed an innocent person and had projected the body to be that of Vikrant and thus, a heinous offence was committed in a preplanned manner and thus, the bail applications deserve to be rejected.

¶18

From the record, it transpires that the chargesheet has already been filed and the applicants were linked with the offence in question based upon the confessional statement of the co-accused which is prima-facie a weak piece of evidence, as such, the applicants who have no criminal history and there being nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicants if enlarged on bail can adversely affect the trial, the applicants are entitled for the bail. Thus the bail applications are allowed.

¶19

Let the applicants Anuj Sahu and Shaktimaan Sahu be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case

¶20

Crime Number subject to their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 VNP/-

¶25

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

Anuj Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Sahu 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Daya Shanker and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Syed Bilal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Kunwar Shukla @ Anand Kunwar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow and Others

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Ajay Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Idreesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.