Allowed

Uttam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018CRLA/5015/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal was allowed wherein the rejection of bail by the Sessions Judge was set aside. The court held that the appellant, with no criminal history and short custody, had made out a case for bail despite the serious allegations.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Uttam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5015 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Uttam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nitin Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Raj Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Ram Raj Pandey, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State, Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 29.8.2018 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Baghpat, in Bail Application No.45 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 1041 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) Ka of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Baraut, District-Baghpat whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶9

According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against six known persons and two unknown persons on 30.9.2017 after fifteen days of the incident alleging that on 15.8.2017 they had assaulted to Sagar, Chhotu and Vimla, they have received no injury and with intent to outrage the modesty of the ladies of the house of the complainant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after investigation, offence under Sections 354-A and 354-B was not found.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 24.8.2018 (one and half months); having no criminal history; he has been falsely implicated in the this case; there is no independent witness; no injury was found on the body of any person and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial.

¶12

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.

¶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 29.8.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant Uttam 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

4.The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

5.The appellant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 OP

Uttam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Bhatt and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rukhsaad Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.