Allowed

Mahendra Alias Lakhram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2019BAIL/47656/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the bail application of the accused in a dacoity case. The applicant, who was not in the FIR and identified during investigation, was granted bail on the grounds of innocence, false implication, and parity with co-accused bail orders.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond, two sureties, and complying with conditions against tampering or committing further offenses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47656 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Alias Lakhram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 243 of 2018, under Sections 395 and 412 IPC and Section 10/12, Dacoity Affected Area Act, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; applicant is not named in the FIR; his name came into light during investigation on the statement of co-accused; nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; entire recovery shown by Police are false and concocted; there is no public witness. Applicant is in Jail since 10.05.2018 having no criminal history. He further pointed out that co-accused Tara alias Sanjay alias Sushil and Roop Chandra have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34468 of 2018 and the case of the applicant stands of identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

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

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶10

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶11

Let, applicant-Mahendra Alias Lakhram be released on bail

¶12

in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

2. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

3. During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.11.2019

¶18

Akram

Mahendra Alias Lakhram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Alias Lakhram 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

Man Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Soni Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Irfan @ Susa Vs State of U.P.

Roopram Vs State of U.P.