Allowed

Ravi Alias Sheelu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024BAIL/156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application of an accused in a murder case who had been in custody since August 2019. Fact witnesses had supported the prosecution story, but with trial delayed indefinitely and no criminal history, the court allowed bail on conditions without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 413 of 2019 on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to listed conditions.

Ravi Alias Sheelu vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29384

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 156 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Alias Sheelu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mrs.Suniti Sachan, Gangeshwar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Afzal Hasan, Farooq Ahmad

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1 . Supplementary affidavit filed today by the counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

3 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 03.02.2022 with direction to conclude the trial within a period of one year.

¶9

4 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that that on 07.08.2019 at about 5 PM in the evening, the husband of the informant was coming home from his agricultural field when the applicant, who was standing near a shop called her husband and attacked him with the use of Tabal, which resulted in grievous injury and he died on the spot.

¶10

5 . It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2019. She further argues that the fact witnesses have already been examined. She draws my attention to the statement of the informant as well as the son of the deceased, who have supported the prosecution story, which according to the counsel for the applicant is because they are interested witnesses. She further draws my attention to the statement of other witness namely

¶11

Abhay Singh, whose statement is at variance with the other witnesses in as much as, he had stated that when he had reached the spot in question, his brother has already died and, the son of the deceased as well as his wife had reached after the incident had taken place. In the light of the said, it is argued that there is a variance in the statement of the witnesses. She further argues that out of 16 witnesses only eight witnesses have deposed and thus there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. She further argued as the fact witnesses have already been adduced, there is no likelihood of the trial being vitiated in any manner.

¶12

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the gruesome act was done by the applicant, which is evident and supported by the prosecution witnesses, as such, the bail application should be rejected.

¶13

7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie , specific allegations were leveled against the applicant in the FIR, the fact witnesses have supported the prosecution story, however, the applicant is languishing in jail since almost four years and eight months having no criminal history. Considering the inordinate delay in trial and observing that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, 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 Ravi Alias Sheelu be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 413 of 2019, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of

¶15

Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(c) 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Arun

¶20

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

Ravi Alias Sheelu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Alias Sheelu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hajari Kuldeep Alias Hajari Kureel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

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

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