单 judge allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the accused, noting he was not named in the FIR and no specific role was assigned, while a co-accused similarly not named in the FIR was already granted bail.
Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount.
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. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7938 of 2018
Applicant :- Liyakat Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Pushkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Counter affidavit has been filed by learned Sri L.D. Rajbhar, A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State of U.P., the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar learned counsel for the applicant, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the accused-applicant Liyakat Ali, who is involved in Case Crime No. 145 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 394, 436, 302 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Vijaygarh, District - Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant to involve in this case. Only on the basis of statement of witness Santosh Thakur under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been made accused in this case. Co-accused Shamsher @ Bholu, who is named in the FIR has been enlarged on bail vide order of this court dated 23.03.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10937 of 2018 (Shamsher @ Bholu v. State of U.P.). Case of the present applicant is on a better footing than that of co-accused Shamsher @ Bholu. Hence, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he admitted this fact that the applicant has been made accused in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Santosh Thakur and also the fact that co-accused Shamsher @ Bholu, who was not named in the FIR, has been admitted to bail by this court.
No specific role has been assigned to the applicant.
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.
Let the applicant - Liyakat Ali be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering he was not named in the FIR and no specific role was assigned to him.
Whether the case is a fit case for enlarging the accused on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Liyakat Ali
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
