Allowed

Gaurishankar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2019BAIL/17895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 452, 304, and 504 IPC, the High Court allowed the petition without expressing an opinion on the merits, noting the applicant's lack of criminal history and innocence, and granted bail subject to standard conditions regarding tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions against tampering and intimidation.

Gaurishankar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17895 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurishankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant brother-in-law of complainant alleging that on 11/12/.10.2018, he assaulted Binda (father of complainant) on head and fled away, he received injuries, resultantly died.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Incident took place at night, no body has seen the incident. There is general allegation against the applicant. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Nothing was recovered from the possession of applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 31.10.2018 (six month) 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 but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let applicant Gaurishankar involved in Case Crime No. 539 of 2018, under Sections 452, 304, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba 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:

¶11

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

¶12

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the

¶13

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 :- 29.4.2019

¶19

A. Singh

Gaurishankar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurishankar 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

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Jaan Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jabbar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Sanjida and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avanish Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another