Allowed

Mahendra Bhatt and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018BAIL/38794/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application grant sought release of two accused persons. The court observed that co-accused had been enlarged on bail and their cases were identical. The application was allowed with conditions to appear in court and not interfere with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with standard conditions of appearing in court and not interfering with evidence.

Mahendra Bhatt and Another Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38794 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Bhatt And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar,Gaurav Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

Sri Narendra Deo Rai, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against ten accused persons namely, Ramjiyawan Bhatt, Ramugrah Bhatt, Bhawani Prasad Bhatt, Devi Prasad Bhatt, Santsaran, Subhash Chandra Bhatt, Jai Prakash, Neeraj Bhatt, Sanjai Kumar Sharma, Mahesh Bhatta and one unknown person alleging that on 4.5.2018 with conspiracy of the above accused persons, one another person had killed Prabhunath Bhatt by shot fired. He received single gun shot injury, resultantly he died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co- accused Devi Prasad Bhatt and Bhawani Prasad Bhatt and Ram Jiyavan Bhatt, Ram Ugrah Bhatt and Sant Saran have been enlarged on bail by co-coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 23.8.2018 and 10.8.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 31668 of 2018 and 28717 of 2018 and the case of the present applicants are identical to case of the co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail; hence the applicants are also entitled for the same benefit; the applicants are languishing in jail since 5.5.2018 (more than six months); having no criminal history; specific role of firing has been assigned to unknown person; single shot injury was found on the body of the deceased; the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no independent witness and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted that the applicant has no criminal

¶11

history and is identical to co-accused who have been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that some rupees from the account of Subhash Bhatt has been withdrawn but bail of Subhash Bhatt is not pending.

¶13

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence and 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.

¶14

Let the applicants Mahendra Bhatt and Jai Prakash Bhatt involved in Case Crime No. 185 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 I.P.C., P.S.-Bakhira, District-Sant Kabir Nagar 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:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 10.10.2018 OP

Mahendra Bhatt and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Bhatt and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shadab Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Kishore Rathi Vs State

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Shyamji Pathak Vs State of U.P.