Shyoraj v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Bail application allowed without merits being expressed. Courts found prima facie case, reasonable apprehension of tampering, and severity of punishment as grounds for bail.
What did the court decide?
Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.
What the court decided
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42098 of 2018
Applicant :- Shyoraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Narain Rai,Sandeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Argument on behalf of the applicant has been extended to the effect that in this case, applicant is not named in the FIR. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has no role to play in the commission of the offence. The police has planted false recovery against the applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from possession of the applicant. Factum of recovery is denied by the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.06.2018 in the present case.
The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Considering the rival submissions and the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who alleges lack of implicaton and denial of possession of recovered articles.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Shyoraj
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Arvind Kumar Mishra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/42098/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court