Allowed

Rinku Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2019BAIL/18294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18294 of 2019, the Single Bench granted bail to the applicant, relying on the parity principle based on a released co-accused and allegations of false implication without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to verification of sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18294 of 2019 Applicant :- Rinku Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Azhar Hussain,Mohan Kant Baghel,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that identically placed co-accused Surya Prakash @ Bhura has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.03.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9962 of 2019. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is next submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no previous criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 23.08.2018.

¶5

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶6

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the fact that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶7

Let the applicant Rinku Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 454 of 2018, under Sections 304, 307, 34 IPC, P.S. Tundala, District Firozabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶8

(i)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶9

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶10

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

¶11

(iv) 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.

¶12

(v) 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 temper with the evidence.

¶13

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.11.2019//Sanjeet

Rinku Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Kumar 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

Dheerendra Vs State of U.P.

Phoola Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Gomati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Kalp Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Girish Kumar Dwivedi @ Girish Vs State of U.P.