Allowed

Jaihind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2018BAIL/17617/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for Bail. The applicant, summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., pleaded acquittal of co-accused and lack of evidence. The Single Judge allowed the application for Bail, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering and ensuring appearance in court.

What did the court decide?

Released on Bail with personal bond and two sureties. Conditions: no tampering with evidence, no threatening witnesses, and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17617 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jaihind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Shukla 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

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with co-accused Raju and Mahendra; the co-accused Raju and Mahendra have been acquitted by the trial court on the same case but this accused was kidnapped hence he was unable to attend the court; subsequently he surrender before the court on 24.11.2017 till then he is languishing in jail (more than five months); criminal history of one case, i.e. Gunda Act of the year 2009 has been explained; there is no evidence against this accused; there is no independent witness against this accused; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused and also admitted that co-accused Raju and Mahendra have been acquitted.

¶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 applicant Jaihind involved in S.T. No. 118A/09 of 2017, in Case Crime No. 140 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Tehrauli, District Jhansi 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:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 10.5.2018/A. Tripathi

Jaihind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaihind 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

Kishan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh @ Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Tilak Vs State of U.P.