Allowed

Manpal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2019BAIL/9806/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This third bail application was allowed, releasing the applicant on bond and sureties. The Court directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C., citing Supreme Court precedents for quashing FIRs/terminating trials in murder cases after prolonged detention.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted; personal bond and two sureties required; trial to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 3rd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9806 of 2019 Applicant :- Manpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This is a third bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.251 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, IPC, Police Station Bhajoi, District Sambhal (Bheem Nagar).

¶5

This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 14.02.2014. The second bail application was rejected on 23.03.2015.

¶6

The counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2012, therefore, a period of almost 7 years have elapsed, but the trial has not yet been concluded. The further contention is that subsequent to the rejection of the second bail application the wife of the deceased has claimed an amount of Rs.5 lacs, and she has been paid the said amount under the "Kishan Durghatana Bima Yojana", copy of which has been annexed on page no.22 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition.

¶7

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.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2012, with no previous criminal history, 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.

¶9

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

¶10

Let the applicant Manpal 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.5.2019 VKG

Manpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpal 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

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Chhottan Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neelu Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Shrawan Kumar @ Sarwan Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra @ Bau Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pinki Vs State of U.P.