Allowed

Bhure Alias Rais v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024BAIL/9045/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application. Finding the applicant linked to murder and forgery via motive and confession with no eyewitnesses, but having no substantial criminal history, the Court ordered his release on personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58320

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9045 of 2024 Applicant :- Bhure Alias Rais Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi,Devendra Verma,Kajol,Kavita Yadav,Tanupriya 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 is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in FIR No.345 of 2021, under Section 302, 201, 120B IPC, P.S. Rupaidiha, District Bahraich.

¶7

3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 02.02.2024 in which directions were issued to the trial Court to endeavour to record the statement of the fact witnesses preferably within a period of six months.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the applicant through the order-sheet argues that after passing of the said order, two other witnesses have been examined. He also draws my attention to the chargesheet in which as many as 33 witnesses are proposed to be examined out of which 8 witnesses have already been examined.

¶9

5. From perusal of the statements recorded of the 8 witnesses, it prima-facie appears that none of them are eyewitness to the incident and the applicant has been linked with the offence in question based upon a confessional as well as on the motive as alleged by the informant in the FIR. The applicant is in custody since 19.10.2021 and has no criminal history except the cases under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act as disclosed in Para 31 of the bail application.

¶10

6. Considering the fact that the applicant has been linked with the offence in question based upon the allegations of motive; there are no eyewitness to the incident and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, the applicant who has no substantial criminal history and is in custody since 19.10.2021 is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶11

7. Let the applicant Bhure Alias Rais be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 28.8.2024

¶16

nishant

¶17

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

Bhure Alias Rais v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhure Alias Rais v. State of U.P. Thru. 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