Allowed

Mohan @ Lalla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018BAIL/32464/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a complaint case alleging offences under Sections 363, 376D, 323, 506, 328, 120-B, 354, and 384 of the IPC, noting similar bail grants to co-accused and lack of early trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, pressure witnesses, and to appear in court.

Mohan @ Lalla Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32464 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohan @ Lalla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Mohan @ Lalla in Complaint Case No.690 of 2014, under Sections 363, 376D, 323, 506, 328, 120-B, 354ga and 384 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District-Hathras with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the main accused Manoj with whom the victim had eloped and solemnized marriage in a temple and also got it registered before Registrar Hindu Marriages in Mumbai has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 8.8.2016 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19846 of 2016. Besides him, other four accused Harish, Rishi Kumar, Mintoo alias Vijay Kumar Sharma and Kishan Lal have been enlarged on bail in Bail Application Nos.38044 of 2016 and 31072 of 2017 vide orders dated 9.11.2016 and 31.8.2017 respectively. It is contended that there is no specific role assigned so far as the applicant is concerned. The case of the applicant stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused who have been granted bail. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 03.07.2018, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Let applicant-Mohan @ Lalla 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 subject to following conditions that:-

¶10

1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶11

2.The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶12

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

¶13

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.8.2018/MN/-

Mohan @ Lalla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan @ Lalla v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Doodhnath Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hari Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of U.P.