Allowed

Amir v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2018BAIL/18351/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the bail application of Amir, who was accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and POCSO Act. The applicant, citing parity with his co-accused brother already on bail and lack of criminal record, sought release. The court granted bail without expressing an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness pressure, and appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18351 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Amir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Amir in Case Crime No. 623 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and 5/6 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station- Kandhla, District- Shamli with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the uncle of the victim was an accused in the murder of applicant's father on account of which to mount pressure the applicant and his brother have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next contended that applicant's brother Shahzeb who is co-accused in the instant case has already been enlarged on bail vide an order dated 26.06.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21867 of 2018. Therefore, the case of the applicant exactly stands on the same footing with that of the co-accused Shahzeb. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 04.12.2017, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let applicant- Amir be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-

¶11

1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶12

2.The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶13

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

¶14

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.8.2018/ Vikas/-

Amir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir 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

Mehfooz Khan Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Afroz Vs State of U.P.

Sujit Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Bantu Khan @ Afsaar Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harishchand @ Ande Vs State of U.P. and Anr.