Allowed

Akash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 May 2019BAIL/12108/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application for an accused charged under Section 366 I.P.C., observing that the FIR and witness statements did not implicate the applicant, and granting bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering, not indulging in criminal activity, and cooperating in trial.

Akash Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12108 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Akash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant-Akash, who is involved in Case Crime No. 639 of 2017, under Sections 366 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhbad, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in Jail since long whereas First Information Report was lodged against one Shivam, who has been left by the Investigating Officer and on the basis of the statement of informant and two alleged witnesses, the accused applicant has been chargesheeted, though in the statement of those two witnesses nothing is against the accused-applicant. Accusedapplicant is of no criminal antecedents, hence bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Perusal of statements of Suraj Shukla and Ranno Shukla reveal that applicant-Akash was having no concern with them. Name of the applicant-accused has not been mentioned in the First Information Report. In the statement of Suraj Shukla and the informant, name of the applicant was not mentioned. Suraj Shukla in his statement has merely said that applicant-Akash had taken some girl and had gone to Delhi. Neither name of the girl nor her identity or address was known to him. Informant was not the eye witness. The Accused-applicant is of no criminal antecedents, hence case for bail is made out.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions, nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant-Akash, involved in above mentioned case crime number, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶13

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶15

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶16

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.5.2019 bgs/

Akash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash 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

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Raju Lal Vs State of U.P.

Aourangjeb Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.