Allowed

Vijit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2018BAIL/511/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant Vijit in a criminal case involving sections 392 and 411 IPC. The applicant alleged false implication and incomplete circumstantial evidence. The Court found prima facie satisfaction of the charge but ordered release with conditions to not tamper with witnesses and cooperate in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Vijit Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 511 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vijit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sukrampal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sukrampal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the case rest on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances have not been completed in the present case which itself falsify the prosecution story, the said fact has been mentioned in para 14 of the affidavit accompanying this bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2017. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Let the applicant Vijit involved in Case Crime No.710 of 2017, under Section 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶10

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶11

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶12

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶13

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 25.1.2018

¶16

Dev/-

Vijit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijit 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

krishna yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Karim @Kale Vs State of U.P.

ram dhari maurya Vs State of U.P.

Tej Ram Vs State of U.P.

Bauwa @ Vinay Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.