Allowed

Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2019BAIL/3940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Malkhan Singh invoking Sections 420, 342, 376, 120-B, and 506 IPC. The applicant alleged false implication due to a dispute over a job opportunity and noted the absence of medical evidence. The court prima facie found a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3940 of 2019 Applicant :- Malkhan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh,Arvind Kumar,Bhavya Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mithlesh Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶5

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2018, under Sections 420, 342, 376, 120-B, 506, IPC, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj.

¶6

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the victim is an educated lady aged about 27 years; that there were some dispute with regard to securing a job, for which some money was allegedly paid. It was only when she does not succeed to get the job, the present FIR has been lodged. The further contention is that the girl has refused to get herself medically examined, hence there is no medical evidence in support of the case of prosecution, as set up in the FIR. The further contention is that the applicant is in jail since 10.12.2018, with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶9

case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶10

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Malkhan Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his 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, of which applicant is suspected.

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.8.2019/VKG

Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkhan Singh 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

Alok Pandey @ Pappu Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Rahmatullah Vs State of U.P.

Irfan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Videshi Vs State of U.P.