Allowed

Pasu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019BAIL/2856/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granted bail to the applicant in a criminal appeal under Sections 302, 120-B, and 404 IPC after finding him falsely implicated. Allowed based on parity with a co-accusee already granted bail, despite apprehensions of tampering with evidence, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2856 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pasu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi,Samarth Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

This case is being taken up as per order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 23.1.2019.

¶7

Heard Sri Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against unknown persons alleging that on 26.5.2018 at 7 A.M. dead body of Tek Ram was found and some person has shot him dead. During investigation on 29.5.2018 statement of Brahm Singh was recorded in which He stated that Sushila Devi (mother of Pinku and wife of Bali Ram)was killed by the deceased in the year 2014; thus Pinku, Bali Ram keep grudge in their mind. Mintu, Shaurabh, Pasu and Suneel threatened the complainant. Later on, at the pointing out of applicant and Shaurabh 'Aadhar card' of deceased was recovered.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.6.2018(more than seven and half months) having no criminal history. He has been falsely implicated. He was not named in the FIR. Recovery of co-called 'Aadhar card' was falsely shown as recovered, by the police to show their good work. There is no eye-witness account and so-called enmity was shown against co-accused Pinku only. Co-accused Saurabh has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.1.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47000 of 2018 (Bail order produced during argument, is taken on record), applicant's case is identical to him and he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. There is no independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history and his case is identical to co-accused

¶11

Saurabh who has been granted bail by this Court.

¶12

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Pasu involved in Case Crime No.228 of 2018, under Section 302,120-B, 404 IPC, Police Station Gulavti, District Bulandshahr 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:

¶14

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.1.2019

¶21

P.P.

Pasu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasu 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hetam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Batham and Another Vs State of U.P.

Gauri Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Alok Mishra Alias Santosh Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Bittu Giri Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Singh Alias Rajjo Vs State of U.P.