In a bail application under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 363 IPC, the High Court allowed the prayer. The applicant argued false implication and lack of FIR. The Court found the case fit for bail, directing release on personal bond and two sureties.
Applicant Santosh released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23598 of 2017
Applicant :- Santosh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Complaint Case No. 760 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 363 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Kalyanpur, District - Kanpur Nagar.
The applicant and co-accused Mithun were summoned by ACMM-II, Kanpur Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 363 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of complaint made by complainant Ramdas.
As per prosecution version, applicant and co-accused Mithun enticed and took away Manoj, aged about 16 years.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that complainant has not lodged any FIR before the police. The applicant was summoned on the basis of complaint. Occurrence is stated to have taken place on 03.01.2015 and application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been presented before the magistrate concerned on 27.01.2015 with an inordinate delay, without any plausible explanation. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Co-accused Mithun and Manoj Kumar had left their house and when they did not return, Smt. Meera, mother of Mithun lodged an F.I.R. for abduction of Mithun. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not at all concerned with the abduction of Manoj and co-accused Mithun.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Occurrence has taken place about 3½ years ago. The applicant has been summoned on the basis of complaint. No useful
purpose will be served to detain the applicant in custody.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
In view of above, the instant bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant - Santosh 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.
Order Date :- 5.7.2018 I. Batabyal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail despite the serious nature of the charges including abduction.
Whether the application of an inordinate delay in filing section 156(3) corroborates the plea of false implication.
Whether the facts present a fit case for granting bail under Section 437 CrPC.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Santosh
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
