Allowed

Manish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2019BAIL/19635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court allowed bail application for applicant Manish in cheating and theft case. Court found it a fit case for bail considering parity with co-accused released on bail, without expressing opinion on merits. Applicant ordered to furnish personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19635 of 2019 Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶3

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant in connection with Case Crime No.473 of 2018, under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, P.S. Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused Devraj, Arvind Solanki and Rampal have already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court by orders dated 27.6.2019 and 15.5.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.25160 of 2019, 25169 of 2019 and 20431 of 2019, copies of the bail orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Devraj, Arvind Solanki and Rampal who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Lastly he submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.3.2019 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶8

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶9

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed .

¶10

Let the applicant Manish be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions;-

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶15

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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.7.2019/Mini

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Suny Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manpreet Singh @ Kake Vs State of U.P.

Arif Iqbal Fansopkar Vs State of U.P.

Raghubar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Kaushik Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Babu Vs State of U.P.