Allowed

Vishundeo Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018BAIL/16787/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16787 of 2018, the Court released the applicant, who was charged under Section 307 IPC, on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lac and two sureties, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1.00 lac with two sureties each, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16787 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vishundeo Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Ram Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shamsul Eslam

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

¶6

Heard Sri D.R.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shamshul Islam,learned learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.S.Tiwari, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

According to the prosecution version FIR was lodged by the complainant against co-accused Sonu Harijan alleging that he caused injury to the inured by a country made pistol and thereafter the accused fled away from the spot.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity and party-bandi and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he is a student of B.A..Subsequently his name surfaced in the second statement of one injured.There is no eye witness of the incident to support the prosecution version.Further, no motive has been assigned to connect the applicant with the crime. There was some dispute over the transaction of money between he parties. The applicant has been roped in the present case on the basis of hear say. The injured was hospitalized on 1.12.2017 and discharged on 8..12.2017. Injury report shows that no internal damage was caused on the person of the injured. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2017. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶9

Per contra, learned A. G. A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Vishundeo Rajbhar involved in Case Crime No. 389 of 2017 under Section 307, I.P.C., police station Haldharpur, District Mau be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1.00 lac with two sureties each( one should be of his family member) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶12

1.The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

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

¶17

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.8.2018 IA

Vishundeo Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishundeo Rajbhar 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

Ramshankar Alias Karua and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sajju Vs State of U.P.

Vijay @ Gullu Vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kamar @ Kamal Dada Vs State of U.P.