Allowed

Bali and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2018BAIL/8291/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to applicants accused under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 IPC for theft of a tractor. The court, despite inordinate delay, granted bail citing possible witness tampering and prima facie satisfaction of the charge, subject to standard conditions and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8291 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Bali And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mayank Srivastavar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.S.Parihar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of their prayer for bail submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and they have committed no offence. It is next contended that there is inordinate delay in loading the report for which no plausible explanation has been given. It is alleged that the battery of tractor of the complainant was stolen by the applicants which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicants. The applicants were not arrested by the police on the spot rather they were nabbed from their house. It is contended that false recovery has been shown against the applicants because there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery. 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 applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process

¶7

of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicants are languishing in jail since 28.1.2018 The applicants have no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

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 reformative theory of punishment the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Bali and Bablu involved in Case Crime No. 14 of 2018, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., Police Station Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, if not warranted in any other case with the following conditions.

¶11

The applicants will continue to attend and cooperate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

They will not tamper with the witnesses.. They will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶13

3t is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 6.3.2018 IA

Bali and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bali and Another 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

Jagpal Vs State of U.P.

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Asad Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Yogandra Yadav Vs State of U.P.