Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024BAIL/9037/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of the applicant, who was son-in-law of a main accused in a death case. The court found no specific allegation against the applicant and noted a lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

Gurudin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58197

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9037 of 2024 Applicant :- Gurudin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Kunwar Prithvi Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

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

¶6

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.561 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 105, 352 of BNS, P.S. Khairighat, District Bahraich.

¶7

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that on 12/13.07.2024 in the night at around 12 to 1, the father of the informant was at the agricultural field when the relatives who are the accused in the FIR mainly Santram who had unauthorizedly kept the mother of the informant with him came and had a fight with the father in which all the accused caused injuries with the use of Lathi, Danda and subsequently, the father of the informant died.

¶8

4. In the light of the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the postmortem report which was conducted on 13.07.2024 at about 3:00 PM in which the timing of the death was shown as around one day ago. In the light of the said, it is proposed to be argued that the postmortem report does not corroborate the allegation with regard to timing of the death. He further argues that the main allegations were against the co-accused Santram who had allegedly kept the wife of the deceased with him and the applicant herein is the son-inlaw of the main accused and has no motive whatsoever. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 13.07.2024.

¶9

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶10

6 Considering the allegation including the statement of the alleged eyewitness contained in Annexure - 4, prima-facie, there is no specific allegation against the applicant, general allegations have been levelled against all the accused, the applicant is son-in-law of the main accused, as such, the applicant who has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶11

7. Let the applicant Gurudin be released on bail in aforesaid

¶12

FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.8.2024 nishant

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudin 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

Ashutosh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sachin Nayar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

M/S Krishna Steels Thru. Proprietor Pramod Kumar vs Commissioner Commerical Tax Lko

M/S Krishna Steels Lko Thru Proprietor Pramod Kumar vs Commissioner Commercial Tax, Lko.U.P.

Masuk vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko