Allowed

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018BAIL/45297/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the accused who had been in custody for over a year in a murder case involving culpable homicide. Relying on the release of an identical co-accused, the Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail. The application was allowed subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Vijay released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to usual conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45297 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Bhushan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against five persons namely, Roshan Lal,Vijay, Manoj, Ram Singh and Bhamar Pal alleging that on 12.12.2016 they assaulted Charan Singh(father of informant) with spade and 'farsa'. He received three head injuries and one abrasion, and died resultantly.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.8.2017(more than one year and three months) having no criminal history. The deceased was 70 years old and died due to fall. He has been falsely implicated. Co-accused Manoj has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.7.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26098 of 2018 and applicant's case is identical to him(Bail order produced is taken on record). General role is alleged to have been attributed to all the accused. There is no independent witness. It is not clear who has caused head injuries. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history and applicant's case is identical to above coaccused who has been enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Vijay involved in Case Crime No.489 of 2016, under Section 302, 307 IPC, Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶11

court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶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 :- 5.12.2018 P.P.

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Musahar Vs State of U.P.

Satish Tomar Vs State of U.P.

Angad Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Prateek @ Chintoo Vs State of U.P.

Hassan Alias Hasan Vs State of U.P.