This judgment grants bail to Sunil in case Crime No.511 of 2017. The court ordered his release on a personal bond and two local sureties upon considering the facts, circumstances, and the dictum of the Apex Court.
Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16436 of 2018
Applicant :- Rustam @ Satyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Kuntal,Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Ram Jatan Yadav,Surendra Mohan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
On the last occasion learned counsel for the applicant was directed to inform the learned counsel for the informant in writing about the order dated 29.04.2019 in which it was mentioned that the case will be taken up in the first call and will not be adjourned on any ground. Today, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has given a notice in writing to learned counsel for the informant, but he is not present.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sheetal Prasad Chakravorty, learned counsel for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Sunil with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.511 of 2017, under Sections 396, 412 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandra, District Agra.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was lodged against five unknown persons stating therein that Dinesh Goyal, son of the complainant, after closing his shop was ready to move for his house, then all of sudden the accused persons came on motorcycle and opened fire upon him and looted jewellery and money from him. It is argued that after nine days of the incident recovery of Rs.52,300/- has been shown against the applicant which is planted one and the same does not connect with the present case as the applicant was required in a case under Section 25 of Arms Act and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel has also pressed the bail application on the ground of long detention as the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.05.2017. It is argued that co-accused Chand Khan and Mungeri, having identical role, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.12.2017 and 30.04.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos.47772 of 2017 and 15943 of 2018 respectively. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for
bail on the ground of parity. It is next contended that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 8.5.2019 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in case Crime No.511 of 2017.
Whether the applicant can furnish a personal bond and sureties to secure bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶12
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
