Allowed

Suresh Pawar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019BAIL/44460/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the FIR alleged negligence causing death due to welding blast. Applicant had no criminal history. Compensation paid. Bail allowed with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions against tampering or intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Order to release applicant on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with specific conditions regarding tampering, intimidation and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44460 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Pawar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Vyas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.N. Tiwari, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against Sri Kuldeep Jain and Manager of Mill alleging that on 12.9.2018 in Mohit Petro Chemicals in the bio-gas tank, at the time of welding, due to blast seven persons were killed and some got injured.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.9.2018 (about four months) having no criminal history; there was no intention or knowledge to kill deceased; unfortunately the incident was taken on spur of moment, no offence under Section 304 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant; maximum offence under Section 304A I.P.C. is made out, which is bailable even then Rs.12 lac was paid to the deceased and Rs.2.5 lac and Rs.one lac was paid to the injured, respectively as compensation; due to Manager the applicant has been falsely implicated; all safety major have been taken by the applicant but the incident was taken unfortunately and all NOCs were also taken from the concerned Departments, which are annexed with the bail application; he was not named in the F.I.R. and Police has arrested and roped him falsely; the incident was done due to negligence of labours not by the applicant; 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, 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

¶11

bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Suresh Pawar involved in Case Crime No. 872 of 2018, under Sections 304, 337, 338, 285, 287 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali City Bijnor, District-Bijnor 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 9.1.2019 OP

Suresh Pawar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Pawar 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

Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kanhai Paswan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Aasim Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P.