High Court Court No. 55 granted bail to the applicant, who alleged false implication and lack of witnesses, relying on Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent, while imposing standard conditions of bond and sureties.
Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. One Lac and two sureties each of Rs. One Lac.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32950 of 2018
Applicant :- Rishabh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yashpal Yadav,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav,learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity. Further submission is that the alleged recovery has been planted by the Police to implicate the applicant in the present case. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is further contended that no one has been injured. It is case of no injury. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 20.7.2018 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
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.
Let applicant Rishab, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 790 of 2018, under Sections 307/504 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri, on his furnishing a personal bond (Rs. One Lac) and two sureties (One should be of a family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
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.
Order Date :- 29.8.2018
ssm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the present criminal case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Rishabh
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
