Allowed

Bambu @ Harish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024BAIL/412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the bail application of Bambu @ Harish charged with murder and concealment of body. The court held that linking the accused solely to the recovery of a mobile phone without eyewitnesses or the weapon justified release.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-commitment of similar offences, and non-interference wit

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55748

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 412 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bambu @ Harish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Panna Lal Gupta,Radhey Shyam,Rishabh Tiwari,Shiv Prasad Chaurasia,Subrat Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

3 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.580 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

¶9

4 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the brother of the informant aged about 22 years had left home and on 01.11.2022 at about 11:00 AM, for which, a missing person report was lodged on 04.11.2022. Subsequently, the body of the bother of the informant was recovered on 06.11.2022 and an apprehension was expressed that the applicant had killed the deceased and had conceal the body. The cause of death as per the postmortem report is ante mortem injury. Two contusions injuries were observed on the head of the victim. Subsequently, the applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon the recovery of the mobile of the deceased.

¶10

5 . The Counsel for the applicant argues that there no independent witnesses to the search. He further argues that there are no eyewitness to the incident and merely based upon the apprehension, the applicant has been linked with the offence in question. He further argues that no weapon allegedly used for causing the injury as reflected in the postmortem report has been recovered from the applicant. It is lastly argues that the applicant is in custody since 12.11.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶11

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

7. Considering the fact that the applicant is being linked with the offence in question solely based upon the recovery of a mobile phone and there being no recovery of weapon allegedly used for the commission of the offence and also considering the fact that out of 18 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined so far coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 12.11.2022, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

8. Let the applicant Bambu @ Harish 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 akverma

¶18

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

Bambu @ Harish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bambu @ Harish 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Rajendra Gupta Third Bail Vs State of U.P.

Babu Ram Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Aditya Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Kalichand Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Mohd. Taufeeq Alias Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.