Allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2018BAIL/41339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application for the applicant, Manoj, accused in a case involving the death of a deceased person allegedly during a dispute with liquor offering. The Court considered the applicant's lack of criminal history and the admitted facts regarding the deceased's condition.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41339 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta 2 Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 20.5.2018 (after seven days of incident) against two accused persons, namely Manoj and Narendra alleging that on 13.5.2018, 8 p.m. at night, they offered liquor, beat and threw the deceased from the roof, he received injuries and he died on 28.5.2018 (after 15 days of incident) during treatment.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Both accused persons and deceased were in drunken position at the time of incident. It is admitted fact by complainant Kishanlal in his statement recovered u/s 161 Cr.P.C. deceased was habitual drunker. There was no intention or knowledge to kill the deceased. Deceased fail down from the roof himself in drunken position, he received injuries and died. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. Statement of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded by Investigating Officer. He is languishing in jail since 4.6.2018 (near about six month) 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let applicant Manoj involved in S.T. No. 197 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Manoj and another) arising out of Case Crime

¶12

No. 83 of 2018, under Sections 304 IPC, Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 30.11.2018 A. Singh

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Nandan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Alias Santosh Soni Vs State of U.P.

Vipin @ Shempu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Savita Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another