Allowed

Ramesh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019BAIL/34022/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of Ramesh Sharma acquitted on merits for forgery of a criminal report. His first bail application was rejected. His co-accused Manveer was granted bail, and no prosecution witness has been examined despite the case being committed to the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34022 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra,Purushottam Dixit,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 868/2018, under Sections 506, 307 IPC, police station Kwarasi, District Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 22.05.2019.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that as per version in FIR, applicant and three co-accused persons have caused knife injuries to deceased and that as per medical examination report of injured, he has sustained five injuries and except injury no. 4, all other injuries were simple in nature. It was submitted that as per statement of injured, knife injury at his neck, was caused by applicant. However, as per medical examination report that injury was simple in nature. Only injury no. 4, that was caused at abdomen of injured, was kept under observation, but there is no supplementary report regarding that injury. It was pointed out that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, co-accused

¶8

Manveer, who is said to have caused the abdomen injury to the injured, has already been granted bail by this Court, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record. It was further argued that the applicant is in judicial custody since 26.06.2018 and that the case has been committed to court of sessions on 22.10.2018, but so far no witness has been examined. It was submitted that similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail and despite long period of incarceration, no witness has been examined so far and thus, the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, it has not been disputed that after rejection of first bail application, co-accused Manveer, who is said to have caused the injury on abdomen of the injured, has already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the second bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

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

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant, victim or his/ her family members or any of the witness of the case.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 Anand

Ramesh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazakat Vs State of U.P.

Tipan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Bharati @ Shiv Vs State of U.P.

Govind Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Avilakh Singh Vs State of U.P.