Allowed

Anil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2018BAIL/28641/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C, the Court allowed the applicant's release on bail in a case involving offenses of molestation and attempt to murder. The Court held that despite the severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering and prima facie satisfaction of the charge did not warrant refusal, especially considering the co-accused was already on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or indulge in unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28641 of 2018 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Sharma,Neeraj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpendra Singh Jadon,Shashi Bhushan Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant Sri S.B.Mishra,learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Sanjay Singh learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶5

According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged FIR against three named persons including the applicant alleging that when his wife was retuning home after participating in a marriage ceremony then one of the accused Aryaveer caught her with bad intention. Consequently she made hue and cry. Hearing the shriek of the victim her son rushed there and challenged the culprits who were armed with fire arms. They opened fire and thereafter fled away causing injuries to the injured.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that in the F.I.R. general role of assaulting the victim with fire arm was made against three persons including the applicant.It is further contended that main role of assault has been assigned to coaccused Arayaveer and no specific role is attributed to the applicant.The injured was admitted in the hospital and discharged on the very next day. The injuries sustained by the injured are on non vital part and simple in nature. There is cross version of the case. False recovery of a country made pistol has been shown against the applicant..There are material contradictions in the statements of of the injured and witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. which creases doubt in the prosecution story. Co-accused Aryaveer has been released on bail by this Court on 7.8.2018, copy of bail order has been produced by the applicant's counsel which is taken on record and the case of the applicant is on better footing to that of the co-accused, hence the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which,

¶7

according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.5.2018. The applicant has history of two criminal cases which has been properly explained in paragraph 29 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Anil involved in Case Crime No. 419 of 2018, under Sections 354, 307 I.P.C, P.S.Shikohabad, District- Faridabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.10.2018 IA

Anil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Ram Vilash Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar Pandey Alias Bablu Pandey and 02 Others Vs State of U.P.