Allowed

Tinku Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2018BAIL/6342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi allowed a bail application. Despite the applicant being named in the second statement of the informant, noting no offence made out and lack of criminal antecedents, the court found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Tinku Singh to be released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court.

Tinku Singh Vs State of U.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6342 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tinku Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Sri Ajai Kumar Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant in the court today, the same is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 650 of 2017, under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Asmoli, District - Sambhal.

¶8

As per version of the F.I.R., co-accused Jagpal abducted victim Sahiba, aged about 15 years and daughter of informant Hanif.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. In his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), for the first time, the informant did not narrate the name of the applicant to involve him in this case. Later on, in his second statement, the informant narrated the name of the applicant and his involvement in the alleged offence. The victim got married to co-accused Jagpal and their marriage was registered. No offence, whatsoever, is made out against the applicant, who is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in jail since 24.12.2017.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. However, he admitted this fact that in the second statement of informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., name of the applicant came into light.

¶11

Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

In view of above, the prayer so made is accepted and accordingly, the instant application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant - Tinku Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.7.2018 I. Batabyal

Tinku Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Singh 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

Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kripal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kallu @ Rakesh Shivhare Vs State of U.P.

Shera @ Sher Singh @ Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nek Pal Vs State of U.P.

Madanpal @ Kunju Vs State of U.P.