Allowed

Vikas Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 May 2018BAIL/4036/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J. allowed bail for Vikas Sharma accused in a murder charge. The court relied on parity with a co-accused already released on bail and noted a lack of direct evidence against the applicant, condoning eight months of custody.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses and appearing before trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4036 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons on 09.09.2017 alleging that they killed the deceased Mohit (son of the complainant) by way of strangulation; on 11.09.2017 the statement of Komal (wife of deceased) was recorded by Investigating Officer in which she confessed that there was illicit relation between her husband and the wife of co-accused Pradeep; hence accused Pradeep with the help of Santosh Sharma and Vikas Sharma killed Mohit.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that case of present applicant is identical to co-accused Santosh Sharma who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8.5.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17144 of 2018 and the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity(Bail order produced is taken on record). The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no legal evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement of Komal before the Police personnel; He was not named in the FIR; there is no eye-witness account against this accused; there is no recovery on the pointing out of this accused except strangulation no other injuries were found on the body of the deceased; hence this is the case of suicidal not homicidal; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 13.09.2017 (more than eight months) having no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused and his case is identical to co-accused Santosh Sharma who has already been enlarged on bail .

¶9

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

¶10

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 applicant Vikas Sharma involved in the Case Crime No. 360 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Bhamora, District Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

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

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant 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 :- 28.5.2018

¶19

P.P.

Vikas Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Sharma 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

Kaliyan Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.