Allowed

Billoo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019BAIL/42305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal matter under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 504, 506, 302 IPC and Section 7 CLAA. The grant followed the classification of key prosecution witnesses as hostile, constituting a subsequent development. The judgment directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously and initiate coercive measures for witness attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; trial to be concluded expeditiously; coercive measures directed for witness attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42305 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Billoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2016 under Sections 147,148,149,336,504, 506, 302 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act PS Lohamandi District Agra. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide orders of this Court dated 10.3.2017 and 29.3.2018 respectively.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.

¶8

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2017 on the ground that Rahis who is the first informant has assigned the specific role of firing to the applicant and the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.3.2018 on the ground that there was no subsequent development or any new ground. Further contention is that subsequent to the rejection of the first and the second bail rejection of the applicant, the first informant Rahis has been examined as PW1 and he has been declared hostile, copy of the statement has been annexed at page 195 of the third bail application. Similarly, Jahangir who is other alleged eye witness has been examined as PW-2, he too has been declared hostile, copy of the statement has been annexed at page 204 of the third bail application.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.

¶10

In view of the subsequent development, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant Billoo 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:

¶13

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

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶19

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 SP

Billoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Billoo 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijmohan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Moolveer Alias Monu Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Lalaram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bujharat Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Gupta Vs State of U.P.