Allowed

Mustak @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2018BAIL/3832/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under CMB Bail No. 3832 of 2018, the Court allowed the bail of the applicant charged with multiple offences including those under IPC and PDP Act, directing release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions to prevent tampering and ensure appearance.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions of no tampering, no pressuring witnesses, and appearance before the trial court.

Mustak @ Raju Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3832 of 2018 Applicant :- Mustak @ Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

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

¶5

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against 106 accused persons including this accused and 250 unknown persons alleging that on 2.4.2016 they assaulted other prisoners and security guards in jail.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained. There was no independent witness. He is languishing in jail since 2.4.2016 (more than seven and half months) and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

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.

¶8

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 view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let applicant Mustak @ Raju involved in Case Crime No. 215 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 342, 353, 332, 333, 307, 323, 336, 308, 504, 506, 427, 364-A, 364, 368 IPC and 3/4 Prevention of Damages to the Public Property Act, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi 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 the following conditions:

¶10

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶11

The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶12

The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 2.2.2018

¶17

A. Singh

Mustak @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustak @ Raju 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

Vinod Alias Chhotey Yadav Vs State of U.P.

ram avtar Vs State of U.P.

arpan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P.

Satish Gond Vs State of U.P.

Kedar @ Kedar Nath Vs State of U.P.