Allowed

Robin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2018BAIL/1042/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Court allowed the bail petition filed by Robin, who was charged under provisions of the IPC. The Court observed that the applicant was in custody for over three months with no prior criminal history and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, witnesses, or committing further offences.

Robin Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1042 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Robin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur,Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against two unknown persons alleging that on 06.10.2017 they snatched the golden chain of the wife of the complainant; on 07.11.2017 four accused persons were arrested by the Police with the recovery of illegal pistols, golden chain and other materials.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no independent witness against the applicant; no identification of any person or property was made; the applicant is the student of B.S.C. in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is in jail since 07.11.2017 (more than three months) having no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Robin involved in the Case Crime No. 1060 of 2017, under Sections 356, 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandara, District Agra be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶15

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.2.2018 A. Tripathi

Robin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin 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

Pravendra @ Pinta Vs State of U.P.

Jai Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Saeeda @ Saeed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.