Allowed

Vipin Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2018BAIL/30264/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the Court granted relief to the applicant based on parity with a co-accused already granted bail, relying on the larger mandate of Article 21 and the Dataram Singh judgment, without expressing an opinion on trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each subject to specific conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30264 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Rana,Kuldeep Singh Tomar,Sachin Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused Devendra Sharma, have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 31.8.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26112 of 2018, a copy of said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record 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 has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 4.6.2018.

¶8

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 the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Vipin Sharma involved in Case Crime No.0102 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Baleni, District Baghpat be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed.

¶14

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 9.10.2018 Dev/-

Vipin Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Omar Vs State of U.P.

Puneet Vs State of U.P.