Allowed

Ramanand Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2018BAIL/13752/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Ramanand Sharma opposed by State of U.P. for his release in a case involving assault and threatening behavior. Court allowed bail citing parity with co-accused, lack of substantive evidence, and simplicity of injuries, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing personal bond with two sureties subject to standard custody conditions.

Ramanand Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13752 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ramanand Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Dinesh, Prabhat @ Banti, Ramanand and Pawan alleging that 21.11.2013 at about 2:15 p.m. they assaulted Niranjan Tyagi; specifically stated that Ramanand Sharma and Prabhat shot fire on complainant, he received two injuries, but simple in nature.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Dinesh and Prabhat have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45754 of 2017, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 of the bail application; the role of the applicant is identical to the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no independent witness against the applicant; without any help the complainant himself went to the Police station to lodge F.I.R; injuries received by the injured are simple in nature; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 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 Ramanand Sharma involved in the Case Crime No. 1180 of 2013, under Sections 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Bijnor 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

¶15

applicant is suspected.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 22.5.2018 A. Tripathi

Ramanand Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand Sharma 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

Deshpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Girish Chandra Alias Gorelal Vs State of U.P.

Surya Narain Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.