The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving explosives and death, observing that a co-accused in an identical role was already released on bail. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including no tampering with evidence and appearing in court.
Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6702 of 2018
Applicant :- Javed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,Prakash Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manmohan Singh
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Shameem Ahmad, Uvasih, Bajhul Kamar and Aaqeel Ahmad alleging that on 20.08.2017 some explosive substance was blast at the time of marriage and some persons have received injury and Qasim was died.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Bajhul Qamar has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.4.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15353 of 2018; there is no eye witness account or independent witness against the applicant; having no criminal history; he is not named in the F.I.R.; there is no evidence against the applicant; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 9.10.2017 (about eight months) having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused, the role of this accused is identical to the role of the accused who have already been enlarged on bail.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Javed involved in the Case Crime No. 629 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 OP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given that an identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Javed
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
