Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2019BAIL/37072/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed by Rahul in connection with offences under Sections 332, 392, and 411 IPC. The Respondent opposed the plea. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rahul released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37072 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 202 of 2019, under Sections 332, 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura.

¶7

The allegation made in the FIR is that the applicant alongwith other coaccused had committed marpeet with the police personnel and they had also snatched mobile phone and Rs. 250/- of the police personnel on 12.4.2019 and the accused was arrested on the same day.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. It is further contended that there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. Offence is triable by the Magistrate. Lastly, he submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.4.2019 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea.

¶10

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 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Rahul be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.9.2019 Mini

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Abdul Kadir Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nasir Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Singh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashwant Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.