Allowed

Ankush v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025BAIL/6655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case on suspicion and lack of eye-witnesses, allowing release on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or affecting trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions including non-tampering, court attendance, and expedition of trial.

Ankush vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48487

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6655 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ankush Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh,Rakesh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Akhilesh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ankush , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kharkhaunda, District Meerut.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 09.05.2024 by Naresh Kumar against Ankush (the applicant) and Naveen alleging therein that on 08.05.2024 Manoj Kumar his son had gone from the house at about 4 pm along with Monty. The dead body of Naveen and Monty have been found in village Panchi in a grove. It appears that someone has strangulated his son and the other person. It is further alleged that both the deceased had told him that if anything happens with them then Ankush and Naveen will be responsible for it since they have threat of life from them. A report be lodged against them.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant and co-accused in the present incident is on the basis of suspicion only. It is submitted that from the joint pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Naveen a belt and a mobile phone of the deceased has been recovered but the same is a planted recovery. It is submitted that co-accused Naveen having identical role has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47381 of 2024, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 17 of the affidavit and is in jail since 08.05.2024.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that naming of the applicant and co-accused in the present matter is on

¶13

account of suspicion. There is no eye-witness to the incident. Co-accused Naveen has been granted bail.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Ankush , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 AS Rathore

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankush v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Shyamvir Solanki vs State of U.P.

Usha Devi vs State of U.P.

Aanchal Puri Alias Kangana Shidhu and Another vs State of Up and Another

Ajay vs State of U.P.

Samir vs State of U.P.

Satish and Another vs State of U.P.