Allowed

Manish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2019BAIL/49609/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49609 of 2019, the court granted bail to the applicant Manish in a case under various IPC sections. The applicant was released on a personal bond with two sureties, conditioned not to tamper with evidence or witnesses. The court directed the trial to be concluded within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond with two reliable sureties; trial to be concluded within one year via Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49609 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, 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. 2096 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has committed no offence; entire prosecution story is false and fake. It has further been submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The recovery shown by police from the possession of the applicant is totally false and fake. Applicant is in jail since 30.9.2019 and he has no criminal history. 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. He further argued that due to heavy pendency of the case in the court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶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 Manish be released on bail 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

¶12

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

However, it is provided that Trial Court shall proceed the trial in view of Section 309 Cr.P.C., expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. In case, trial is not decided in the stipulated time, Trial Court shall inform this Court explaining entire circumstances and seek further time, otherwise it shall be treated as disobedience of the order of this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.11.2019 Manoj

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Ram Prakash Yadav @ Banda Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Hasim Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P.