Allowed

Vibhu Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018CRLA/3437/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Hon'ble Court allowed the bail application of appellants charged with offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The Court set aside the impugned rejection order and granted bail subject to specific conditions including surrendering personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting bail rejected; appellants released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each on specified conditions.

Vibhu Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3437 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Vibhu Agrawal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Pandey,Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anoop Trivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 22.6.2018 passed by learned Special Judge/S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in Bail Application No. 1224 of 2018 ( Vibhu Agrawal and another vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.183 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506, 452, 325, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Pilibhit whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶8

According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against seven accused persons, namely Vinit Agrawal, Harshul Agrawal, Sappan @ Mohan, Hariom Agrawal, Vishu Agrawal, Ankit Agrawal and Aftab alleging that on 4.5.2018 they entering into the house of the complainant- Smt. Tara Devi assaulted her and her daughter Sangeeta. They received injuries, except one of both, were found simple in nature and fractures were found on the right hand of Tara Devi and on the forearm of Sangeeta. They had also looted chain, kundal and purse.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants are languishing in jail since 4.6.2018 (about two months); having no criminal history; they have been falsely implicated; injuries received by both the injured were found simple in nature except one, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out; F.I.R. was lodged under Section 392 I.P.C., but during investigation, no offence under Section 392 I.P.C. was found; there is no independent witness and if they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of case being heard in near future.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellants have no criminal history.

¶11

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 22.6.2018 rejecting bail of appellants is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let appellants Vibhu Agrawal and Harshul Agrawal involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

2.The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

3.The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

4.The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶17

5.The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.8.2018 OP

Vibhu Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vibhu Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Ghanshyam Das Vs Anil Gupta and Another

M/S Shree Ram Investment Vs State of U.P. and Others

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Hafeez Vs State of U.P.

Sharun Vs State of U.P.