Allowed

Bheem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2019BAIL/49628/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court heard a bail application in a case under Sections 392, 411 IPC. Considering the alleged false implication, lack of FIR delay explanation, no recovery from the applicant, and no possibility of flight, the Court discharged from its duty. The applicant is granted bail upon furnishing bond and sureties, with conditions against tampering and strict trial timelines under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49628 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Bheem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri J.B. Singh, 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.213 of 2019, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-24 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, 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; prosecution story is false and fake. It has further been submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. but his name came into light on his confessional statement. It is further contended that F.I.R. has been lodged after three days of the incident and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further contended that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The recovery of one gold locket and Rs. 2000/- shown by the police from the applicant is false and fake. Applicant is in jail since 2.8.2019 having no criminal history before his arrest. The applicant has been implicated in 11 criminal cases after his arrest and in all cases, he has been granted bail. 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. has 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 Bheem 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 concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.11.2019 Manoj

Bheem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem 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

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

Mohd. Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Hasim Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P.