Allowed

Vikram v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC25 May 2018CRLA/269/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail, holding the appellant made out a case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bond, noting co-accused had already been enlarged.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant Vikram released on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 269 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Vikram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Shamsher Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Raj Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed today by Sri Fahim Ahmad, learned AGA for the State is taken on record.

¶6

Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent was not present when the case was listed on 18.05.2018. Today also he is not present.

¶7

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

¶8

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat in Case Crime No.879 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 354, 294, 452, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat whereby bail application was rejected.

¶9

According to prosecution case the FIR was lodged against five accused persons, namely, Rahul, Baboo, Vikram, Deshpal and Ankit alleging that on 01.10.2017 at about 21:30 pm they assaulted Manjeet, he received one head injury, resultantly died.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that co-accused, namely, Rahul and Babloo have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 03.05.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1796 of 2018, as such, the appellant is also entitled for

¶11

bail as he has not assigned any specific role in the present case. The appellant/applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no legal evidence against the applicant; 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 08.10.2017 (more than seven months); having no criminal history.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that there is no criminal history against appellant and submits that appeal has to be dismissed.

¶13

For the foregoing discussions, 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 view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.12.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant/applicant Vikram be released involved in Case Crime No.879 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 354, 294, 452, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

i) The appellant/applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

ii) The appellant/applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The appellant/applicant shall appear on the date fixed

¶18

by the trial court.

¶19

iv) The appellant/applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the appellant/applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which appellant/applicant is suspected.

¶20

v) The appellant/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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 Nitin Verma

Vikram v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

manoj Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Badan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kaliyan Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita Vs State of U.P. and Another