Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2018BAIL/6698/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court allowed bail in a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 437/439 CrPC. The applicant, arrested with explosives and a pistol, was granted bail with conditions despite the serious nature of the charge, noting no criminal history and lack of independent witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6698 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, 11.12.2017 applicant was arrested by the police and three detonator, one country-made pistol 315 bore and seven cartridges were recovered from his possession.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. There is no recovery from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness. He is languishing in jail since 12.12.2017(more than two months) and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant Vijay Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 543 of 2017, under Section 5/26 Explosive Substance Act, 1908, P.S. Bithari Chainpur, District Bareilly 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 22.2.2018

¶18

A. Singh

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Ujendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jai Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

sarjeet kumar sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Bhagwandas Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P.