Allowed

Vicky v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2019BAIL/1918/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant prayed for bail arguing his co-accused was released and allegations were general. The court accepted the facts that the applicant has no criminal history and the case is analogous to that of a co-accused who was enlarged on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions regarding tampering with evidence, appearing in court, and not committing further

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1918 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vicky Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheel Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely Manish, Vikki and Nauminath alleging that on 21.10.2018 they assaulted Jhinak, he received injuries, due to head injury he died. During investigation, witnesses Pratap Sahni and Mohan Yadav stated that head injury was caused by Nauminath due to which he died.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Manish has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.1.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 839 of 2019, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against the applicant. According to statement of Pratap Sahni and Mohan Yadav, main role was assigned to co-accused Nauminath. Only one injury was found on the body of deceased. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 25.10.2018 (more than two and half 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 but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and the case of present applicant is identical to coaccused Manish who has been enlarged on bail.

¶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 Vicky involved in Case Crime No. 891 of

¶11

2018, under Sections 304, 120-B IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur 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 :- 16.1.2019 A. Singh

Vicky v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky 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

Vijay Vs State of U.P.

Nanka Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Ramkaran Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Mausam Vs State of U.P.