1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Bhupendra Singh vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 January, 2019


Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4322 of 2019 Applicant :- Bhupendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Bhupendra Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 159 of 2018 under Sections 306 IPC, P.S. Narahat, District Lalitpur during the pendency of the trial.
From the F.I.R., it is apparent that the deceased Dolly was a young lady aged about 20 years. The applicant Bhupendra is of the native place of the deceased and inspite of the fact that the deceased was a married lady, he followed the deceased when she was going on a motorcycle with her Devar and threatened the young lady to accompany him. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that the young lady committed suicide. The case noted in the F.I.R. stands corroborated by the statement of the Devar of the deceased, photo copy of which is on the record at page 44 of the paper book.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proof of charge under Section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. However, up to this stage, there is no cogent evidence on the record to establish that the present applicant has abetted in the commission of alleged crime by way of aid, conspiracy or instigation. As such, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of the Dever of the deceased, he submits that the conduct of the present applicant clearly comes within the definition of instigation as explained by the Apex Court in the Case of Ranganayaki Vs. State by Inspector of Police, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 521. It is thus urged that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant, I do not find any good reason to grant indulgence to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Arshad
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Bhupendra Singh vs State Of U P


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

30 January, 2019
  • Rajeev Misra
  • Jaysingh Yadav