Allowed

Sahdev v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 May 2019BAIL/48551/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal matter involving offences under various sections of IPC. It released the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions. The court directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or committing similar offences.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48551 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sahdev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vidya Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State as well as Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri Vidya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶6

The applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime NO.751 of 2017 u/s 147, 148,149,302, 120B and 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act PS Bisrakh district G.B. Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present case co-accused Arun Yadav, Anil, Sonu @ Dharam Dutt Sharma, Pradeep alias Bhola and Sheru Bhati have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.11.2018, 7.1.2019, 21.1.2019 respectively. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 18.12.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.3.2018.

¶8

The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A. G. A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant. However, they do not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail by this Court.

¶9

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶10

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Sahdev 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 in the aforesaid case crime with the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

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,

¶16

of which applicant is suspected.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 SP

Sahdev v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdev 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

dhuru Vs State of U.P.

Ramjeet Bind Vs State of U.P.

Harendra @ Bholu Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Kamesh @ Chini Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P.