Allowed

Sachin and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2019BAIL/9593/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits. The court noted the applicants had no criminal history, the FIR was lodged seven days after the incident, and there was no abetment of suicide alleged against them.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants Sachin and Monu on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to five standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9593 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sachin And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri P.K. Rai, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 23.10.2018 (after seven days of incident) against three accused persons, namely Monu, Sachin and Sumit @ Chhota alleging that on 16.10.2018 they assaulted Akshya Kmar due to which he committed suicide at railway track. According to postmortem report, whole body of deceased was found crushed.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. No role of abetment of suicide is made out against the applicants. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicants. F.I.R. was lodge after seven days of incident after thought and due legal consultation. Whole body of deceased was found crushed and other injuries was found. Offences levelled against the applicants are not attracted in the present case. Deceased has committed suicide himself. They are languishing in jail since 17.11.2018 (more than five months) having no criminal history and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted that applicants have no criminal history.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let applicants Sachin and Monu involved in Case Crime No. 337 of 2018, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

4.The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶15

5.The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 17.4.2019

¶18

A. Singh

Sachin and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin and Another 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

Sona Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Uma Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Saleem Rizvi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ramawati Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Sattar Vs State of U.P.

Ishwar Dayal Alias Ishwardas Vs State of U.P.