Allowed

Bhagwandas Lodhi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2018CRLA/675/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. It set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant, Bhagwandas Lodhi, conditioned on furnishing a bond and sureties and adhering to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed and the impugned order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Bhagwandas Lodhi Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 675 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Bhagwandas Lodhi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Narayan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bhagwan Das

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for Opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by learned Session/Special Judge, Lalitpur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 482 of 2017 (Bhagwan Das Lodhi and another Vs.State) in Case Crime No. 262 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 120B I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Saujana, District Lalitpur whereby bail application was rejected.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 29.07.2017 against four accused persons, namely, Dev Singh Thakur, Bhagwan Das, Krishna Thakur, Ramla Ahirwar alleging that on 28.07.2017 they killed deceased Thanua (brother of the complainant) by shooting him with firearm. He received one gun shot injury caused by Dev Singh Thakur and resultantly died; country made pistol, motorcycle and cartridges were recovered at the pointing out of co-accused Dev Singh Thakur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that the co-accused Ramla Ahirwar has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45537 of 2017(Bail order is at page 66). Co-accused Krishna Thakur has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2018(Bail order produced is taken on record). The role of the appellant is identical to the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail and he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Main role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Dev Singh Thakur. There is no independent witness against the appellant. Only one gunshot injury was found on the body of the deceased. 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 29.07.2017 (more than nine and half months) having no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent opposed

¶10

the prayer for bail but admitted that there is no criminal history against appellant.

¶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 19.12.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let appellant/applicant Bhagwandas Lodhi be released in aforesaid case 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 P.P.

Bhagwandas Lodhi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwandas Lodhi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kamta Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another