Allowed

Deshpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2018CRLA/580/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves the disposal of a criminal appeal filed by Deshpal challenging the rejection of his bail application. The appellant, facing charges under various IPC sections and the SC/ST Act, argued for bail citing injury uncertainty and lack of independent witnesses. The Single Judge, noting no criminal history and disagreeing with the prosecution's claim of prior conviction under Section 32

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two reliable sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 580 of 2018

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by Learned In-charge Additional Sessions Judge, Special, S.C./S.T. Act, Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 89 of 2017 (State Vs. Rahul & others) in Case Crime No. 879 of 2017, under Sections 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.

¶8

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons, namely, Rahul, Babloo, Vikram, Deshpal and Ankit alleging that on 01.10.2017 at about 21:30 p.m they assaulted Manjeet, he received one head injury, resultantly died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that general role has been assigned against all the accused persons; one injury was found on the body of the deceased and it is not certain who is the author of that injury; there is no independent witness against the appellant; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he languishing in jail since 08.10.2017 (near about seven months); criminal history of one case has been explained.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this accused has been convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. with three year imprisonment, revision is pending and he is on bail; hence the appeal has to be rejected.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 21.12.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant/applicant Deshpal be released in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 89 of 2017 (State Vs. Rahul & others) in Case Crime No. 879 of 2017, under Sections 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

¶14

on their 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 by the trial court.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 21.5.2018 A. Tripathi

Deshpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deshpal 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

Vijendra Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kamta Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Zulfam Vs State of U.P.