Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024BAIL/457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 302 IPC for an alleged throttling death. Court noted no criminal history, custody since 05.11.2023, and prima facie incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, without expressing opinion on merits, and allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions including no tampering with evidence and presence before trial court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14266

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 457 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vidyasagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.309 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Jahangirabad, District Barabanki.

¶9

It is alleged in the first information report that on 01.11.2023, father of the informant after taking dinner at about 06:00 pm went for sleep in the port-yard 200 meters away. On 02.11.2023 in the morning when he did not return home, the wife of the informant at about 07:00 am saw that he is lying dead and blood is oosing out from his mouth. The cloths were also soiled with blood.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the inquest, it was opined that deceased was ailing and blood used to oose out from his mouth. He some times used to take liquor and ganja. No mention of any injury has been made in the inquest report however, in the post mortem done, ante mortem injuries have been found. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling and smothering.

¶11

He next submits that P.W.1-complainant has been examined in

¶12

the court where in the cross, he has shown ignorance about the matter written in the written report and it has also been stated that he has not seen the incident.

¶13

He submits that only on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been arrayed as an accused. According to the statement of the complainant, some altercation took place between the applicant and the complainant, some days ago, except this, there is nothing with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the crime. No one has seen the incident, there is no last seen evidence, no recovery from the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history, its a case of circumstantial evidence. The applicant is in jail since 05.11.2023.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2023 having no criminal history, prima facie , the chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Vidyasagar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

Order Date :- 16.2.2024

¶26

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyasagar 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

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

Hari Ram @ Hari Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Umesh Alias Sajan Panda Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Shaukin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Chandra Shekhar Rawat @ Goley Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.