In this criminal bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant despite not expressing a view on the merits of the case, relying on the larger mandate of Article 21 and a Supreme Court dictum.
Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation, non-tampering, and lawful conduct.
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. - 35611 of 2018
Applicant :- Kehar Singh @ Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Singh Parihar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that applicant has not committed any offence as stated by the prosecution. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. 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 13.08.2018 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 Kehar Singh @ Lal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 543 of 2018, under Section 60(2) Excise Act and Section 272 IPC, Police Station- Bhojipura, District- Bareilly on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. Two Lakh each) (One should be of a family member) in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial 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 :- 19.9.2018 Arti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who claims innocence in a criminal case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kehar Singh @ Lal
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
