Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024/502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. allowed the second bail application of Vineet Sahu accused under Sections 302/34 IPC for murder. The court observed that the case relied on circumstantial evidence and the accused has been in jail since 17.12.2021.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13706

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 502 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vineet Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Gupta,Amar Nath Dubey,Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.4497 of 2022 was dismissed as not pressed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 27.09.2022.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.0361 of 2021, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Kursi, District Barabanki.

¶9

It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 13.12.2021 in the evening, my younger brother was went to ease out after that he has not come back to home and his mobile phone was switched off. After that, informant along with mother and sister went out towards the agricultural field in search of the deceased. After some time, they found him felling down in a broomstick and was bleeding.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is not named in the first information report. There is no eye witness to the incident neither there is any last seen evidence. In the post mortem report, cause of death is due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. Case is of circumstantial evidence. There is nothing concrete to connect the applicant with the crime in question. According to post mortem report, deceased died one and half days ago which means the deceased could have died on 12/13.12.2021. Even the statement of two sisters Laxmi and Shushma only raises suspicion on the applicant and nothing else. Applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is in jail since 17.12.2021.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.12.2021, case is of circumstantial evidence so also the post mortem report, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Vineet Sahu be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Udai Raj Maurya Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ranjeet Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.