Allowed

Bijendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019BAIL/6275/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court granted bail to the applicant Bijendra in Criminal Misc. No. 6275 of 2019. Bail was allowed on personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions. Court directed expeditious trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. citing Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, threats, and absconding.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6275 of 2019 Applicant :- Bijendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman,Mohit Kumar Jaiswal,Ravi Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V. K. Pandey, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶4

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.585 of 2018, under Sections 120-B, IPC, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶5

The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the applicant was not named in the FIR; that subsequently on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused Rinku as well as on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant himself, the applicant has been implicated in the present case; that as far as the co-accused namely Karmveer is concerned who was assigned the role of firing, the police after investigation has submitted final report against him, in the matter; that there is no recovery from the possession of the applicant; that the applicant is in jail since 22.08.2018.

¶6

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.

¶7

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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.

¶8

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

¶9

Let the applicant Bijendra 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:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

Bijendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijendra 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.

Balakram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu@Vipin Vs State of U.P.