Allowed

Deepak Singh @ Nate v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2019BAIL/41966/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 396 and 120B IPC, the High Court allowed the petition, noting the applicant had no criminal history and was falsely implicated. The court imposed standard bail conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and non-appearance.

Deepak Singh @ Nate Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41966 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Singh @ Nate Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons alleging that on 16.3.2015 Rs.28 lacs of complainant, who was the Manager of shop of wine, was looted. Subsequently, during investigation, it was found that Rinku @ Vikas, Shiva Bind, Deepak Singh, Sani Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Amarnath Yadav were also indulged in this crime and shot fired on Manoj Singh and he died. Rinku @ Vikas and Shiva Bind had shot fired on Manoj and the present applicant was standing on the road and recovery of helmet and motorcycle was shown. The name of other accused was disclosed later on.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.7.2015 (about three years and five months); having no criminal history; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; no identification parade of helmet and motorcycle was conducted; there is no specific role of the applicant and co-accused Amarnath Yadav has been enlarged on bail by the trial court; one co-accused Sani Singh has been died; main role was assigned to Rinku @ Vikas and Shiva Bind; there is no legal evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement before the Police personal; he is not named in the F.I.R., there is no independent witness and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no possibility to get this case decided in near future.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and also admitted that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Amarath Yadav, who has been enlarged on bail by the trial court.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties,

¶10

facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, 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 bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Deepak Singh @ Nate involved in Case Crime No. 173 of 2015, criminal case no. 4404 of 2015, under Section 396, 120B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghazipur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

5.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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.1.2019 OP

Deepak Singh @ Nate v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Singh @ Nate 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Prabhu Chauhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Vs State of U.P.

Shahzad Vs State of U.P.

Pintoo Gupta Vs State of U.P.