Allowed

Chhot Bhaiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2019BAIL/30218/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to the applicant under Sections 411, 413, 414 IPC. The court allowed the plea on the ground of parity with a co-accused already granted bail and noted lack of public witnesses for alleged recovery. Conditions for bail included cooperation in trial and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30218 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Chhot Bhaiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Usha Srivastava,Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 Chhot Bhaiya in connection with Case Crime No.315 of 2019, under Sections 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.

¶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 applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested on the information received from the informer. He further submitted that there is no public witness of the alleged recovery, which is totally fake and false. He submitted that the co-accused Dharamveer Singh @ Raj has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court by order dated 18.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28665 of 2019. He claims parity. He has placed reliance in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018(3) SCC, 22 . He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2019 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 co-accused Dharamveer Singh @ Raj has 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 Chhot Bhaiya 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

¶16

of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission; 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.7.2019 R./

Chhot Bhaiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhot Bhaiya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghubar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Kaushik Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shankar Tiwary Vs State of U.P.