The Court allowed the bail application of Arman Ali, who was accused of selling illegal liquor resulting in deaths. The Court noted the explanation of criminal history and lack of chemical proof, holding it a fit case for bail subject to conditions.
Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10525 of 2019
Applicant :- Arman Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mishra brief holder for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against seven accused persons, namely, Satish Mishra, Satish Chandra, Sarwan, Budhdhe, Ramshwaroop Singh Gaur, Vinay Singh Gaur, Neeraj Singh Gaur alleging that they were selling illegal liquor, after consuming liquor six persons died. During investigation, the name of the applicant was surfaced.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Their death was an accidental, unintentional and without knowledge of accused. There is no chemical examination report to show that recovered wine was adulterated. Offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC are not made out against the applicant. There is no independent witness against the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 20.5.2018 (more than nine months) criminal history of three cases have been properly explained and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that criminal history has been explained.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, 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 opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Arman Ali involved in Case Crime No. 142 of 2018, under Sections 304, 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC and Section 60-A of the Excise Ac, Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat 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:
trial.
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5.The applicant 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 12.3.2019 OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application filed by Arman Ali is maintainable and fit for grant of bail.
Whether the learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history and cooperation for trial.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Arman Ali
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
