Allowed

Kaliyan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2018BAIL/19736/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the court allowed the release of the applicant Kaliyan, arguing that his case stood identical to a co-accused already granted bail and noting the lack of specific evidence against him. The application was disposed of with standard bail conditions attached.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions regarding evidence, intimidation, and court appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19736 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kaliyan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Yadav,Abhilasha Singh,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Rajeshwar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against eight accused persons, namely Ramphool, Suresh, Banti, Kaliyan, Boby, Bablu, Pinku and Dharama alleging that on 8.9.2017 they assaulted Jagveer with bricks, stone and lathi-danda , he received one head injury, resultantly died.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Ramphool has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.3.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6927 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. There is general allegation against all accused persons. Only one head injury was found on the body of deceased. It is not clear from the prosecution evidence who was the author of the injury found on the head of the deceased due to which he died. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness and eye witness account against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 12.9.2017 (near about eight and half months) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and the case of present applicant is identical to coaccused Ramphool who has been enlarged on bail.

¶10

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

¶11

is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Kaliyan involved in Case Crime No. 186 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 336, 302, 307, 323 IPC, Police Station Ramghat, District Bulandshahr 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 following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

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

¶17

5.The applicant 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 25.5.2018

¶20

A. Singh

Kaliyan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliyan 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

manoj Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Badan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita Vs State of U.P. and Another