Court rejected a second bail application filed by Ravi in a criminal case involving serious offences including murder and attempted murder, holding that prosecution witness statements corroborated the applicant's involvement and no grounds for release existed.
Bail application rejected; applicant not entitled to release.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13677 of 2023 Applicant :- Ravi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Vijay Yadav,Arun Kumar,Ramesh Kumar Yadav,Vineet Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kr. Misra,Dr Surendra Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.
Rejoinder afÏdavit filed by the applicant is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.336 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 34, 302 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2023.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 14.06.2022 and P.W.5 has not supported the prosecution case before the trial court. He has further submitted that the statement of PW5 and PW6 indicate that they have not assigned the specific role to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned AGA submitted that the statements of PW1 and PW2 have been considered by this Court and thereafter bail application was rejected. It is further submitted that the statements of PW5 and PW6 indicate that there is corroboration in the statements given by them before the trial court regarding the commission of crime by the applicant. He has further submitted that the injured witness and P.W.1, the complainant have supported the prosecution case and same has been considered and there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant was not involved in the commission of crime as such he is not entitled to be released on bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
The application for bail of applicant Ravi is, hereby, rejected.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024 Pks
Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail after the rejection of the first bail application.
Whether the prosecution witnesses support a case of the applicant's involvement in the commission of crime.
Whether the recorded materials justify the rejection of the second bail application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
