Mintu vs State Of U.P.
2018 Latest Caselaw 4225 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47014 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Mintu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Virendra Singh Tomar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 285 of 2018, under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S. Khekara, district-Baghpat and is in jail since 19.5.2018, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. of this case transpires that the accused-applicant had thrown bricks at the deceased and by throwing bricks the deceased sustained serious and died after 2-3 days. He next submitted that the applicant had no intention to eliminate the deceased and he has not thrown the bricks with the intention to cause death. He also submitted that the deceased Akash was habitual of wine drinking and due to drinking he fell down and received injuries. He lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 19.5.2018 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that police during investigation has recorded the statement of complainant Dhara Singh, in which he has specifically stated that the accused applicant Mintu after drinking liquor had thrown bricks on his hut and due to bricks throwing his son Akash received fatal injuries and had died after 2-3 days. The other witnesses namely, Mukesh, Karan Pal and Harbeer have also supported the prosecution version, hence the applicant's prayer for bail is liable to he rejected at this stage.

After having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, this Court does not find it proper to release the applicant on bail.

The bail application is accordingly rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 11.12.2018

Faridul