Single judge allowed bail to Om Sahai, a co-accused in an examination impersonation case, relying on the precedent that a co-accused had been enlarged on bail while upholding standard bail conditions and sureties.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
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. - 40422 of 2018
Applicant :- Om Sahai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Tripathi 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 Mrityunjay Kumar, Hari Ganesh Yadav and Omsahai alleging that on 29.7.2018 accused Mrityunjay Kumar was taking examination in place of accused Hari Ganesh Yadav with conspiracy of accused Om Sahai.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Mritunjay Kumar has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.9.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34952 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. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. There is no independent witness against the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 30.7.2018 (near about three months) criminal history of one case has been properly explained 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 criminal history has been explained and the case of present applicant is identical to co-accused Mritunjay Kumar who has been enlarged on bail.
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 applicant Om Sahai involved in Case Crime No. 990 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & Section 3/9 U.P. Sarvjanik Pariksha Adhiniyam, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura 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 :- 25.10.2018
A. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given that a co-accused has already been granted bail in identical circumstances.
Om Sahai
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
