Allowed

Umesh @ Kajariya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2019BAIL/17365/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application filed by Umesh @ Kajariya challenging his remand in a criminal case involving kidnapping, blackmail, and abetment of suicide. The court allowed the application and granted bail on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is 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 specific conditions.

Umesh @ Kajariya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17365 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh @ Kajariya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons, namely Monti, Kaushal, Mohit, Pankaj and Umesh alleging that they kidnapped the daughter of complainant, Puja aged about 14 years; co-accused Monti made physical relation with her and shoot obscene photo and the same was sent to Umesh, Kaushal, Mohit and Pankaj. They were blackmailing her and making pressure due to this reason, she was depressed and on 12.8.2018 she committed suicide herself by administering poison. According to postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera was preserved. During investigation, Shaurabh Gupta was surfaced and mobile used in this incident was also recovered from the possession of co-accused Shaurabh Gupta.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Kaushal has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7156 of 20189, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. There is no allegation about rape against the applicant. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No role of abetment of suicide is made out against the applicant. Main role was assigned to coaccused Monti. The role of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Monti. There is general allegation against the applicant. There is no independent witness/eye witness account and no legal evidence against the applicant. Nothing was recovered on the pointing out of applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 16.8.2018 (more than eight months) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that bail of co-accused Shaurabh Gupta has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and the case of present

¶9

applicant is identical to co-accused Kaushal who has been enlarged on bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let applicant Umesh @ Kajariya involved in Case Crime No. 867 of 2018, under Sections 306, 323, 506, 120-B, 354C IPC & Section 66 Information Technology Act & Section 3/4, 11(5)/12 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 25.4.2019 A. Singh

Umesh @ Kajariya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh @ Kajariya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna @ Krishna Prasad Modanwal Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd .Sabir Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Pal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha @ Rubi Vs State of U.P.