Dismissed

Anil Kumar (in Fir Annu) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024NABAIL/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed in a criminal case involving an accidental death by electrocution. The court held that the applicant's complicity was evident based on independent witness statements and rejected the plea of false implication.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application was rejected; no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Anil Kumar (in Fir Annu) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59638

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Kumar (In Fir Annu) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Arvind Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Arvind Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant who has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.328 of 2024, under Sections 351(2), 105 BNS, 2023, P.S. Colonelganj, District Gonda.

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 01.07.2024, son of the informant namely, Mukesh took the animals for grazing in the field. In the field accused persons Annu (Anil Kumar), Shushil, Girish and Santa had surrounded their field with a barbed wire fencing and ran the electricity on the wire. The complainant's son went to graze the animals where he contacted the electricity current and died.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent. Four real brothers have been falsely implicated. Field is not in his name rather in the name of mother of applicants.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail application.

¶11

It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that fair investigation has been conducted. During investigation complicity of two

¶12

brothers have not been found therefore, their names have been dropped. The son of the complainant has died due to electrocution done on account of current being run by the accused in the field of their mother, it is not a case of false implication. The statement of independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

On due consideration to the statement of independent witnesses, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication, complicity of the applicant is evident, one person has died hence no case for anticipatory bail is made out. The bail application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 31.8.2024 kkb/

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar (in Fir Annu) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar (in Fir Annu) 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

Himanshu Singh @ Rishu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Rahish Vs State of U.P. Secy. Home Lko. and Anothers

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Anuj and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dinesh Mourya @ Dinesh Kumar Mourya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. Home and Another