Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC22 May 2024BAIL/5268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail for the applicant in a case registered under Sections 376D, 306, and 504 IPC. The court noted the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the informant's failure to disclose the source of information, and conflicting post-mortem opinions regarding the cause of death, finding sufficient grounds for bail without affecting trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Ajay Kumar on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses.

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38858

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5268 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Raghunath Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Raghunath Prasad, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2023, under Section 376D, 306, 504 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 10.06.2023 against four persons, including the applicant, alleging that the accused persons had rapped the informant's daughter aged about 15 years at about 07:00 pm on 04.04.2023 and thereafter they had hanged her from a Babool tree. One of the co-accused persons Sevak Ram came to the informant's house at about 03:00 pm on 03.04.2023 and hurled abuses.

¶10

The post-mortem report of the deceased mentions a solitary injury, which was a ligature mark around her neck and the cause of death has been opined to be Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. However, the deceased was found to be 15 weeks pregnant.

¶11

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she reiterated the F.I.R version. She stated that she had no knowledge about the accident when her daughter's dead body was found and intimation in this regard was given to the police. She did not give any answer to the query as to when did she receive any information about the incident. She further did not give any reply as to whether any person had seen the incident.

¶12

A second post-mortem report of the dead body was conducted in which it was found that the hyoid bone of the dead

¶13

body was intact and, therefore, the cause of death remained uncertain.

¶14

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a juvenile co-accused person has been granted bail by means of an order dated 03.02.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.94 of 2024.

¶16

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the dead body was recovered on 04.04.2023 and the F.I.R has been lodged on 10.06.2023; that the informant has not disclosed the source of information of commission of the offence and involvement of the applicant therein and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Ajay Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Preeti.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Kudrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Chitra Misra and 13 Others Vs M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and Another

Asheer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Badri Kumar Shrestha vs Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru. Its Superitendent of Police

Vimal Kishore and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and Others

Zuber Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.