Allowed

Laloo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 May 2019BAIL/22463/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application involving Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, the court, without examining merits, observed that the applicant was falsely implicated due to political enmity and granted bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with conditions against tampering with evidence and committing further crimes.

Laloo Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22463 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Laloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and gone through the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant- Laloo , who is involved in case crime no.886 of 2018 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police StationSikandrarao, District- Hathras.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that he has falsely been implicated in the present case; allegation against accused persons including applicant that they armed with country made pistols assaulted the first informant and his son Devendra due to which they sustained gun shot injuries. It is further submitted that due to political enmity, there was a quarrel between the parties in which both sides have received injuries and at this stage it cannot be determined as to which party is the aggressor. It is next submitted that co-accused Rajesh has been provided bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.4.2019 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.16552 of 2019, claiming parity, pleading false implication it is lastly contended that the accused applicant is languishing in jail since 7.3.2019.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute parity as claimed.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without touching the merits of the case in my opinion the accused applicant is entitled for bail.

¶10

Let the above named applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence,

¶12

shall cooperate in investigation or trial and shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶13

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.5.2019//Fhd.

Laloo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laloo 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Lakhvindar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Phool Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Vriksh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.