Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Smt. Minakshi for alleged violations of urban planning laws and IPC offences. Court noted parity with co-accused and allowed bail on bond and sureties.
Applicant released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39530 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Minakshi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidit Narayan Mishra,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Smt. Minakshi in connection with Case Crime No.854 of 2019, under Sections 188, 288, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.
The first information report of the incident was lodged by the employee of the Greater Noida authority with the allegation that the applicant had constructed the flats in Greater Noida without adhering to the bye-laws and they have violated the various provisions of U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act and had violated Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 and they had constructed the flats without getting pass the layout plan
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 Section 10 of U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 is punishable merely with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and the alleged offence under Sections 188, 288, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that in the similar matters the accused persons have been admitted to the concession of interim bail by another Benches of this Court vide orders dated 14.10.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41741 of 2019 (Pradeep Aggarwal), 41744 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Goel), 41703 of 2019 (Taran Pal Singh), 41795 of 2019 (Rajesh Agarwal), 41776 of 2019 (Rakesh Tandan). He claims parity. He submitted that all the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2019 and in case, she is released on bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity.
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 aforesaid co-accused have 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.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Minakshi 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:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence 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.
Order Date :- 17.10.2019
R./
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the parity of co-accused and the nature of allegations.
Whether the failure to follow construction bye-laws constitutes an offence warranting preventive detention.
What conditions should be imposed on the grant of bail in this construction-related case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41741 of 2019 (Pradeep Aggarwal)Referred¶10
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41744 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Goel)Referred¶10
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41703 of 2019 (Taran Pal Singh)Referred¶10
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41795 of 2019 (Rajesh Agarwal)Referred¶10
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41776 of 2019 (Rakesh Tandan)Referred¶10
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Minakshi
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ajit Singh
Parties & counsel
