Allowed

Harish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024BAIL/4219/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for murder and attempted murder charges, the High Court allowed the applicant's release on personal and surety bonds, distinguishing his role as holding the victim while another inflicted the fatal wound, noting lack of recovered weapon and no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bonds and two sureties with conditions to attend hearings, not commit further offences, and not interfere with witnesses or evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30555

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4219 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Harish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Singh,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Ravindra Shukla 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.201 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 324, 34 IPC, Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 16.05.2022 at about 5:00 PM, the father-in-law of the informant along with her husband and the entire family members were sitting in their home, when all the accused came, on account of an old enmity, armed with iron rod and knife and started hurling abuses and launched attack on the husband, brother-in-law and father-inlaw of the informant. It was alleged that the applicant had caught hold of the husband of the informant and one Rakesh inflicted knife wound on the husband of the informant, which resulted in his death. As regards the applicant, it was alleged that the applicant had caused injuries to the other family members i.e. brother-in-law of the informant. It appears on record that subsequently, the husband of the informant died on account of the alleged injury sustained. The FIR also records that the applicant was carrying a knife in his hand.

¶9

4 . In the light of the aforesaid allegations, the Counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the postmortem report, which shows the cause of death as ante mortem injuries. The postmortem report also indicates stab wound below left scapula and lacerated wound on left lung. It is argued that as per the FIR and subsequent statement of the informant recorded during investigation, the applicant was assigned the role of catching hold and the main role of attacking was assigned to co-accused Rakesh. He further argues that allegedly a Kudal was recovered at the instance and the pointing out of the applicant whereas in terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the applicant had caused knife injuries to the brother-in-law of the informant. He thus

¶10

argues that recovery of a knife does not corroborate the prosecution story as alleged against the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 18.05.2022, as such, he may enlarged on bail.

¶11

5 . Learned A.G.A. opposes the bail application by arguing that in terms of the allegations levelled in the FIR, it is clear that the applicant along with other co-accused had caught hold of the deceased and the injuries were inflicted by co-accused Rakesh, as such, the intent is common and by virtue of Section 34 of IPC, the applicant would also be liable for punishment. She further argues that this facts were duly supported by the informant during investigation. She however does not deny the recovery, which records the recovery of Kudal at the instance and pointing out of the applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie , as per the FIR and the statement, the applicant was assigned the role of catching hold, there is no recovery of weapon allegedly used and caused the death of the deceased is not recovered at the instance and pointing out of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 18.05.2022, 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 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:

¶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

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 akverma

¶19

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

Harish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Similar cases

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

Ram Sagar vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mohd. Ashraf vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Santoshi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.