Allowed

Mintu Masala v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2018BAIL/36968/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant Mintu Masala in a criminal case alleging death due to adulterated wine. The court allowed the application based on parity with co-accused already on bail and the applicant's lack of prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to standard bail conditions.

Mintu Masala Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36968 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mintu Masala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey,Rakesh Tripathi I Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against two accused persons, namely Sudhir and Pramila alleging that on 13.3.2018 one person was died due to consuming adulterated wine supplied by Sudhir and Pramila. Subsequently, during investigation, it was found that Ravi Yadav, Dilip Rana, Mintu Masala, Ranjeet Mandal, Jiti @ Jitendra and Banti Chauhan were also indulged in this crime.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Ravi Yadav, Dileep Rana, Banti, Ranjeet Mandal, Jiti @ Jitendra, Banti Chauhan and Sudhir and Pramila have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.9.2018, 10.10.2018, 10.10.2018, 19.9.2018, 14.8.2018, 9.8.2018 and 23.10.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4324 of 2018, 39032 of 2018, 39004 of 2018, 35286 of 2018, 3438 of 2018, 3521 of 2018 and 3884 of 2018 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail, hence the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity; applicant is languishing in jail since 5.4.2018 (about eight months); having no previous criminal history; eight cases have been roped later on; except this applicant, all other co-accused have been enlarged on bail; 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.

¶9

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 applicant has no previous criminal history and also admitted that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Ravi Yadav, Dileep Rana, Banti, Ranjeet Mandal, Jiti @ Jitendra, Banti Chauhan and Sudhir and Pramila, who have been enlarged on bail

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant Mintu Masala involved in Case Crime No. 170 of 2018, under Section 304, 328, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station-Khoda, District-Ghaziabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

5.The applicant 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 6.12.2018 OP

Mintu Masala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu Masala 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Prateek @ Chintoo Vs State of U.P.

Hassan Alias Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Chhote Lal Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Haneef Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.