Allowed

Rahil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018BAIL/28361/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court entertained a bail application by Rahil, who was in custody since 3.9.2017. Noting that a co-accident was granted bail on parity grounds and citing Dataram Singh case, the court allowed the application ordering release on personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to verification of sureties and adherence to stipulated conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28361 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Khalil Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Supplementary Affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused Rahees has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2.11.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42514 of 2017 and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 3.9.2017.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Rahil involved in Case Crime No.250 of 2017, under Sections 395, 398, 342, 411, 414, 420, I.P.C., Police Station Rohta, District Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

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

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶15

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.8.2018 T. Sinha

Rahil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra @ Baingan Vs State of U.P.

Vishwanath Vs State of U.P.

shesh mani alias dev raj patel and another Vs State of U.P.

Ankush Vs State of U.P.

Avinash Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Shradha Goyal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another