Allowed

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019BAIL/49763/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49763 of 2018, the Court allowed the bail petition of Surendra accused under Sections 302, 120-B/34 IPC for alleged firing incident causing death. The Court noted lack of independent witnesses against the applicant and his prior custody in another case, finding it a fit case for bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Surendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49763 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary and counter affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri C.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely Sonu, Surendra, Takke and Pratap Singh alleging that on 27.9.2018 at night they shot fire at Manoj, he received one gun shot injury caused by Sonu, resultantly died.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against the applicant. The name of the applicant was shown in F.I.R. on the basis of suspicion only. There is no independent witness against the applicant. Applicant was already languishing in jail from 26.9.2018 to 1.10.2018 in another case. Hence, he was not present at the time of incident. Main role of causing fire arm injury was assigned to co-accused Sonu. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 29.11.2018 (near about one and half months) criminal history of three cases has been properly explained and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that criminal history has been explained.

¶11

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Surendra involved in Case Crime No. 648 of 2018, under Sections 302, 120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Kanth, District Shahjahanpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 A. Singh

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Ishraq Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Arpan Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Vs State of U.P.

Nanka Vs State of U.P.

Jeetu Kashyap Vs State of U.P.