Second bail application in a murder, kidnapping and evidence-destruction case after rejection of a first detailed order. The court found no fresh grounds, noted the prosecution witness had supported the case, and rejected the bail application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67018
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7277 of 2024
Applicant :- Viresh Kumar Verma @ Urli Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Nigam,Khushbu Tripathi,Rubi Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant has refused to file rejoinder affidavit.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This is second bail application, the first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3458 of 2021 has been rejected by a detailed order dated 24.07.2023.
4. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2020 under Sections 302,364 and 201 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that P.W.-2 doctor has been examined and after looking into the statement of the doctor, it could not be inferred that the applicant was involved in the commission of crime as such the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that statement of P.W.-1 has been recorded, who is the wife of
the deceased and she has supported the prosecution case. She deposed before the court that the applicant had called the deceased and asked for his amount Rs.50,000/- which was given as advance by him and thereafter the deceased was done to death. The entire arguments have been considered in the rejection of first bail order ,therefore, there is no cause of action and It has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering overall facts of the case as well as the argument that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected after considering the statement of P.W.-1, wife of the deceased and the argument that there is no fresh ground,therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
8. The bail application of the applicant is rejected.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 26.9.2024 dk/
Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a second bail application under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC when the first application was already rejected and no fresh ground existed.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Viresh Kumar Verma @ Urli
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
