Allowed

Amit Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024/6495/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed a bail application filed by an accused named only in the co-accused's uncorroborated confessional statement. The court rejected prosecution objections due to lack of substantive evidence and injuries mentioned in the statement not corroborated by the postmortem report.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and sureties subject to standard conditions of attendance, non-commission of offence, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67231

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6495 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghunath Singh,S.C. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.2 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Khairabad, District Sitapur.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was staying separately in Lucknow and was in relationship with the main accused. It was alleged by the informant that on 23.12.2023, when she called on her mobile number, which was found switched off and subsequently, an information was received that she died and her body was laying near P.S. Khairagarh. It was alleged that prior to the death, the daughter of the informant had given two mobile numbers stating that in case anything happened, the persons of these mobile numbers are responsible. Subsequently, during investigation, the main accused has admitted the commission of offence. The postmortem report indicates the cause of death as ante mortem hanging and apart from the ligature mark, one abrasion on the back of left leg below knee joint as well as one contusion on back of left leg above knee joint and a contusion present on occipital region of scalp were observed.

¶9

4 . The confessional statement of the main accused was recorded, in which the main accused had confessed that he was in relation with the deceased and she was insisting for marriage and was also demanding money, as such, a conspiracy was hatched by him. It was also alleged by the main accused that he had attacked her on nose and thereafter on the head with the use of Danda and thereafter contacted the brother, the present applicant, and with the help of a plastic rope both of them had hanged her on a tree and when she died, the body was hide in a sugar cane field and lay away from the spot. It was also alleged

¶10

that in the night, the main accused and the applicant took the dead of the deceased and thrown it at the place of recovery.

¶11

5. The Counsel for the applicant argues that the name of the applicant appeared in the confessional statement of the main accused. No recovery was effected from him and even in the said confessional statement, there is no allegation of the applicant having caused the offence. He further argues that even in terms of the said confessional statement, no injury was observed on the nose as confessed in the said statement, thus, there is no material to implicate the applicant, as such, the applicant, who is in custody since 24.03.2024 and has no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the applicant is the true conspirator as per the statement of the co-accused and considering the manner in which a young girl was killed, the bail application should be rejected, however, he does not dispute that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶13

7. Considering the submissions made at the bar; the fact that the applicant not named in the FIR; his name surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused and even in the said statement, no allegation against the applicant of having killed the deceased; the statement of the main accused is not corroborated by the postmortem report on record in respect of the injuries inflicted on the nose and also considering the confessional statement of the main accused which a weak piece of evidence and there being no substantive evidence against the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 24.03.2024, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

8. Let the applicant Amit Raj be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 akverma

¶20

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

Amit Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

Harishchandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Hme Lko and 3 Others

Jaskarn Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Kaiser Jahan vs Mufeed Ahmad

Gyani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.