Allowed

Dilip Kharwar Neta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018BAIL/32956/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court released applicant Dilip Kharwar Neta on bail in a criminal bail application. The court observed that a co-accused had already been enlarged on bail in an identical case, injuries were simple, and the applicant was innocent. Bail was allowed on furnishing bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32956 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dilip Kharwar Neta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh,Ashok Kumar Maurya

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit and Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the parties is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and unknown person alleging that on 4.7.2018 they assaulted the complainant and misbehaved with him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Awanish Singh has been enlarged on bail by the court below in Bail Application No. 1404 of 2018 vide order dated 29.8.2018 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of coaccused who has been enlarged on bail; hence the applicant is also entitled for the same benefit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.7.2018 (about four months); five cases of criminal history have been explained; injuries of injured were found simple in nature; nothing has been done; there is no independent witness; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Awanish Singh, who has been enlarged on bail.

¶11

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Dilip Kharwar Neta involved in Case Crime No. 271 of 2018, under Section 323, 504, 506, 341, 353 I.P.C. and 3Ka of U.P. Medicare Service Person and Medicare Service

¶13

Institution Prevention of Violence and Damages to Property Act, 2013, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ballia be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

2.The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

4.The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

5.The appellant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 12.11.2018 OP

Dilip Kharwar Neta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kharwar Neta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shobh Nath Vs State of U.P.

Sakil @ Chota Vs State of U.P.

Shoeb Chisti Vs State of U.P.

Mahboob Vs State of U.P.

Wasim Vs State of U.P.