Dismissed

Suresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2024BAIL/3950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail application of Suresh, who was accused of killing his brother and burying the body at home. The court found the allegations serious and no case for bail made out, but directed the trial court to expedite the trial and record witness statements within three months. Liberty was granted to revive the prayer post-recording of statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected. Trial court directed to expedite trial; witnesses to be recorded within three months. Applicant may revive bail prayer post-statements.

Suresh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47257

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3950 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Umang Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

In terms of the F.I.R. lodged on 10.3.2020, it was alleged that the informant had gone out of home to the matrimonial house of the daughter of the informant and two sons of the informant were at home. It was further stated that the applicant who is the second son of the informant was habitual of taking intoxicants and used to misbehave at home and had sold off his share of property. It was also stated that he used to demand a lot of money and the applicant used to threaten to kill his younger brother and when on 9.3.2020, the informant came back to home, both the sons were missing and subsequently, on 10.3.2020 when the house was clean, underneath the bed, a duly dug pit in which elder son of the informant was buried and the applicant who is the younger son of the informant was missing. It was alleged that the applicant had committed the offence alongwith other co accused and had buried the body at home.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is in custody since 15.3.2020. He further argued that there are no eye witness to the incident.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the chrgesheet to state that there are ten witnesses and only three have been examined and mother of the deceased and one of

¶10

the Panchayat witness who is related to the applicant, have not supported the prosecution story and considering the detention of the applicant since 15.3.2020, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that the applicant has killed his own brother and buried his body at home and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application should be rejected.

¶12

Considering the submissions made at the bar, from the allegations levelled by the mother of the applicant, a very serious allegation has been levelled. The applicant is an accused of killing his own brother and burring the body at home, alongwith his accomplices.

¶13

Considering the gruesome manner in which the offence was committed, no case for bail is made out. Bail application is rejected.

¶14

However, the trial court concerned is directed to ensure that the trial is expedited and the evidences of other witnesses are recorded with all expedition.

¶15

Superintendent of Police, Bahraich is directed to ensure that the formal witnesses and the Panch witness as well as the doctor are produced before the trial court for recording their statements within a period of three months from today.

¶16

The trial court is further directed to ensure that the statements of all the witnesses who are related to the incident are recorded within three months and shall ensure that the steps shall taken for expeditious disposal of trial.

¶17

The applicant would be at liberty to revive his prayer for bail after the statements of the witnesses are recorded.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.7.2024/Shukla

¶19

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

Suresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Ram Sumer @ Sumer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hanuman Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Avneesh Kumar Nishad @ Aneesh Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mustakeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow