Allowed

Purushottam Sharma @ Pandit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2019BAIL/6660/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case regarding fatal injuries to a police constable. Despite the applicant not being named in the FIR, the Court considered the bail granted to co-accused and surrounding facts, finding it a fit case for bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties under IPC 302, subject to conditions of cooperation with trial and no tampering with evidence.

Purushottam Sharma @ Pandit Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6660 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Purushottam Sharma @ Pandit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R. and his name has surfaced in confessional statement of co-accused persons, who were allegedly involved in incident in question of causing fatal injuries to Constable Sanjeev Kumar at the time when police party was chasing their Pick-up loaded with bovine animals; that upon arrest real culprits have stated that they used to carry bovine animals and Manoj Kumar Sharma and applicant used to charge Rs.2500/per vehicle for getting it cleared through highway; that applicant has not been assigned with role of participating in incident in question in which Constable Sanjeev Kumar sustained injuries; that co-accused Manoj Kumar Sharma and Fareed @ Fareed Khan with identical role have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.1.2019 and 11.2.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3804 of 2019 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5512 of 2019, copy of which has been produced for perusal and is taken on record; that applicant has explained his criminal history in para 12 of affidavit given in support of bail application application; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 1.11.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed prayer of bail.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for parties, perusal of record and considering complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on merits of case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Purushottam Sharma @ Pandit be released on bail in Case Crime No.499 of 2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C., P.S. C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of

¶10

magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing liberty of bail enabling court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not delay disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel bail and send applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.2.2019 Md Faisal

Purushottam Sharma @ Pandit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Sharma @ Pandit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Raju Baheliya Vs State of U.P.

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Tej Pal Vs State of U.P.

Kewal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bittu Alias Chandravir Vs State of U.P.