Allowed

Chintu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2018BAIL/8016/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous bail application filed by an accused charged under various IPC sections for theft and forgery. The High Court held him entitled to bail, refusing to express an opinion on the merits of the charges, and granted bail on a personal bond with two sureties under specific conditions to prevent tampering with witnesses and ensure court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

Chintu Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8016 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alka Pandey,Reeta Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. It is further submitted that applicant was only pillion rider of the said motorcycle. It is further submitted that no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. 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 08.10.2017.

¶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 the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Chintu involved in Case Crime No. 599 of 2017, under Section 379, 41, 441, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi 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

¶11

trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Arti

Chintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintu 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

Rahul Alias Rajan Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Jaswant Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jagannath Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ali Kaisar @ Pyare Miyan Vs State of U.P.