Allowed

Radhey Shyam and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2018BAIL/11987/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. Court granted bail to applicants Radhey Shyam and Brij Kishor under the Arms Act, relying on the decision of a co-accused with an identical role, fixing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to compliance with conditions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Radhey Shyam and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11987 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Radhey Shyam And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raju Singh,Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Parvesh Yadav, advocate, holding brief of Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against the applicants. Offences levelled against the applicants are not attracted in the present matter. There is no any direct evidence to connect the applicants with the present case. The co-accused namely Parsu Rajpoot having identical role has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12196 of 2018, therefore, the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. There is no previous criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 12.01.2018 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶7

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused having identical role has already been released on bail.

¶8

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.

¶9

Let the applicants Radhey Shyam and Brij Kishor involved in Case Crime No.10 of 2018, under Section 3/5/25 Arms Act, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶10

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶11

The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶12

The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶13

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected.

¶14

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

¶15

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court below be at liberty to cancel the bail without any reference to this Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Jitendra

Radhey Shyam and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ekhlakh Aahmad and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Tabassum and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pal Singh @ Jaspal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Dr Mustaq Husain Vs State of Up and Another

Gopal Vishwkarma Vs State of U.P. and Another