Allowed

manoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2018BAIL/2658/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant Manoj based on the principle of parity with four co-accused who had already been released. The court released him on a personal bond with two sureties, imposing standard conditions regarding evidence tampering and witness harassment, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Manoj is released on bail on executing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to five standard conditions regarding evidence, witnesses, and appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2658 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Rajesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against 15 accused persons, namely, Mamta, Anil, Shubham, Akash, Lokesh, Manoj, Mohit, Upendra, Vinod, Vidit, Harveer, Pramod, Dharmendra, Vikki @ Vikrant, alleging that on 11.07.2017 on exhortation of these accused persons, driver of truck bearing no. U.P. 11T 0887, made an attack on Pigo jeep and caused accident, eight persons were died.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Shubham, Harveer, Anil, Lokesh and Vinod have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2017, 09.05.2017, 27.07.2017, 24.11.2017 & 8.12.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5616 of 2017, 26341 of 2016, 15341 of 2017, 23090 of 2017 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-13 of the bail application; the role of the applicant is identical to the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no independent witness against the applicant; four witnesses have been examined before the trial court but they have stated nothing against the applicant; the role of this accused is only exhortation; there is no possibility to get this case be decided shortly in near future; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 03.08.2011 (more than six years and nine months) having no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused, the role of this accused is identical to the role of the accused who have already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Manoj involved in the Case Crime No. 780 of 2011, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 427, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali City, District Muzaffar Nagar 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 24.5.2018 A. Tripathi

manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

manoj 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

Dheerendra Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Gurjar Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Badan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.