Allowed

Shyamji Pathak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018BAIL/38807/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the court considered the gravity of the offence involving the collapse of a tower killing three persons, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and the fact he was not named in the FIR. Relying on Apex Court dicta, the court allowed bail on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

Shyamji Pathak Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38807 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shyamji Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against 24 persons alleging that on 17.07.2018, six floor tower was fallen down and three persons were killed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.7.2018 (about two months); having no criminal history; arrest of Kailash Tyagi, Aleen Gupta, Atul Tyagi, Nitin Tyagi, Najmu alias Najmuddin Chetan Tyagi alias Chetan Bhagwan Tyagi was stayed by the competent court. There was no intention to kill anybody. The applicant has no concern with the said building. He was not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, he was probed; 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.

¶8

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 applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 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.

¶10

Let the applicant Shyamji Pathak involved in Case Crime No.586 of 2018, under Sections 304, 337, 338, 427, 288, 34 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kotwali Bisrakh,District Gautam Budh 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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 :- 10.10.2018/SKD

Shyamji Pathak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamji Pathak 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

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.

Mahendra Bhatt and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Mishra Vs State of U.P.