Allowed

Balakram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019BAIL/48701/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The court enlarged the applicant on bail by passing a personal bond and two sureties after finding a prima facie case for bail, noting a co-accused with similar name had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties conditioned against tampering, threatening witnesses, vagrancy, and fresh offences.

Balakram Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48701 of 2018

¶2

Applicant :- Balakram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Vikram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Chandra Tiwari

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and Kumari Meena, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶5

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.518 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 477, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun.

¶6

The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the co-accused Ranveer has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47875 of 2018, copy of the order has been produced by the counsel for the applicant is taken on record; the applicant is in jail since 15.10.2018 with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the co-accused having identical roll have already been granted bail by another Benches of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, 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.

¶9

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

¶10

Let the applicant Balakram 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:

¶11

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

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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. Order Date :- 10.7.2019 VKG

Balakram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakram 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

Vindhyachal Musahar Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Sonu@Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.