Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024BAIL/725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected a second bail application. The court held that the heinous nature of the offence (murder by firearm causing injury to wife and daughter) and corroborated eyewitness statements precluded bail, directing the trial court to record statements expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to record statements of fact witnesses expeditiously.

Ravish Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11114

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 725 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravish Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.114 of 2020 under sections 302, 307 IPC and section 27/30 Arms Act, P.S. Rupaidiha, District Bahraich.

¶8

This is second bail application, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court vide order dated 13.09.2022 wherein this court had desired that the trial be concluded within eight months.

¶9

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 08/09-04-2020, an information was received that on account of family dispute, the applicant had caused the murder of his wife by the use of licensed weapon and the injuries were also sustained by the daughter of the accused while she was trying to save her mother. Subsequently, the victim died and the cause of death as recorded in the postmortem report is ante-mortem firearm injury. The injuries are duly disclosed being two lacerated wounds, one on the forehead up to the lower face, second on the mid of the right forearm and firearm injury was also on the chest cavity.

¶10

It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in custody since 09.04.2020 and not even a single witness has been adduced which is corroborated by the report dated 05.02.2024 which was called by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2024. The counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant was suffering from depression, as such, that accident was occurred on account of the applicant suffering from depression.

¶11

Learned AGA, on the other hand, opposes the bail application by arguing that a heinous offence was committed and not only did the applicant killed his wife, substantial injuries were recorded on the daughter. He also places reliance on the statement of the daughter wherein the daughter of the

¶12

applicant had corroborated the version as narrated in the FIR of causing firearm injuries, as such, the bail application should be rejected.

¶13

Considering the statement of the eye witness and the nature of the offence, which is very grievous, no case for bail is made out, as such, the bail application is rejected.

¶14

However, the trial court is directed to expeditiously record the statement of fact witnesses and the applicant would be at liberty to apply for bail after the statement of the fact witnesses are recorded.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 VNP/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravish Kumar Pandey 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satya Prakash Mishra Alias Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

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

Priya Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Santosh @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. and 3 Ors.

Shiv Nandan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko.