Allowed

Tarzan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2019BAIL/25464/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Tarzan in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities of Prevention Act, citing the precedent of bail granted to co-accused and finding it a fit case for release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties of like amount with conditions to appear and not tamper with evidence.

Tarzan Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25464 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Tarzan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Tarzan in connection with Case Crime No.340 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities of Prevention Act, P.S. Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the previous criminal history of the applicant has been explained. He submitted that the co-accused have been admitted to the concession of bail by another Bench of this Court by orders dated 03.06.2019 and 30.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 19216 of 2019 (Subhash Gihar) and 45931 of 2019 (Amit alias Mallu). He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.04.2018 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

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

¶9

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 and also the fact that the aforesaid co-accused have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.8.2019

¶19

R./

Tarzan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarzan 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

Jainuddin Vs State of U.P.

Shaukat @ Moni Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Wazid Vs State of U.P.

Kavindra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P.