In a bail application under Sections 304 and 323 IPC regarding an assault resulting in death, the High Court allowed bail for the applicant, noting the co-accused had already been granted bail and citing the lack of specific evidence against him.
Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties; applicant released from custody.
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. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38945 of 2018
Applicant :- Mahesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh,Abhitosh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely Kunwarpal, Devendra and Mahesh alleging that on 22.1.2018 at 11 a.m. they assaulted Omveer Singh, resultantly died. According to postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Kunwarpal has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18681 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against all accused persons. There is no independent witness and no eye witness account against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 6.3.2018 (more than seven months) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
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 criminal history.
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.
Let the applicant Mahesh involved in Case Crime No. 0004 of 2018, under Sections 304, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr 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:
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
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.
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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 11.10.2018
A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the co-accused already secured bail in a similar role and lack of specific evidence against him.
Whether the applicant, having no criminal history and no independent witness evidence, fits the criteria for bail.
Mahesh
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
