Court granted bail to Dileep and Rameshwar Baheliya in a case under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C. on grounds of non-naming in FIR and lack of public witnesses during recovery.
Applicants granted bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each subject to standard conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22908 of 2019
Applicant :- Dileep Baheliya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 35 of 2019, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Pilua, district-Etah, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were not named in the first information report. They are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 28.2.2019 and the accused was arrested by the police on 28.3.2019 along with other co-accused Rameshwar Baheliya and Padam Baheliya after one month of the incident. The amount of Rs. 12000/- and Rs. 10,000/- is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and other coaccused Padam Baheliya was false and fabricated. There was no public witness of the alleged recovery. Further submission is that all the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate.
He lastly submitted that the applicants are languishing in jail since 28.3.2019 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicants, Dileep Baheliya and Rameshwar Baheliay be released on bail on their executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 35 of 2019, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Pilua, districtEtah subject to the following conditions:-
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Faridul
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicants entitled to bail during pendency of trial for offences under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C.
Dileep Baheliya
Rameshwar Baheliya
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
