Allowed

Vikal Alias Nikhil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2019BAIL/4375/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant Vikal @ Nikhil who was accused of murder in a private prosecution case. The court concluded he was a fit case for bail on preliminary facts without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend trial and avoid unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4375 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vikal Alias Nikhil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R. lodged on 17.9.2018 by Krishna Pal with the contention that named accused Dheeraj came at his house at 8:00 p.m. on 16.9.2018 and threatened of life of his son Pravendra @ Kala within two days and thereafter named coaccused Pradeep fetched Pravendra to his courtyard where Dheeraj, Pradeep and Vijit consumed liquor along with one more person and thereafter Pravendra was beaten to death with sharp edged weapons and lathi-danda within the courtyard of co-accused Pradeep; that after a period of one week on 25.9.2018 first informant made an application with the averments that un-named person in F.I.R. has been found to be Vikal, the applicant; that recovery of weapon of crime Dawn has been made at the pointing of co-accused Pradeep, who has confessed murder of Pravendra by him with the help of Dheeraj and Vijit assigning role of causing injuries by Dawn to coaccused Dheeraj; that applicant was not at all participated with the named accused persons in consuming liquor or in causing any injury to deceased; that case of applicant is distinguishable from named accused Pradeep and Dheeraj; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 28.9.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Vikal @ Nikhil be released on bail in Case Crime No.287 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Rohta, District Meerut, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court

¶10

concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.2.2019 Kpy

Vikal Alias Nikhil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikal Alias Nikhil 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

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Sahu @ Bhure @ Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Mayank Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Karan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Tanvir Alam Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P.