Allowed

Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020BAIL/2332/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and 12/14 D.A.A., the Court allowed bail. The applicant alleged false implication. Relying on bail granted to co-accused for parity and lack of evidence regarding flight risk despite criminal history, the Court ordered release on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions against tampering, non-cooperation, and criminal activities.

Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2332 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Vinay Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.20 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and 12/14 D.A.A., Police Station Bahilpurwa, District Chitrakoot, applied for bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police to show good work. He has committed no offence. Prosecution story is false and fake. Applicant is in jail since 27.04.2019. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Lastly it has been submitted that case of present applicant is identical footing to the case of co-accused persons, namely, Ram Chandra @ Kakka and Tejram, who have already been granted bail on 09.08.2016 and 21.09.2016 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.27142 of 2016 and 32717 of 2016 respectively, therefore, the applicant be released on bail on the ground of parity also and due to heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that there are large number of criminal history against the applicant but admitted that role of co-accused persons who have already been granted bail and present applicant are similar.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction,

¶11

keeping in view of bail granted to the co-accused persons and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶12

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶16

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶17

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger 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

Reenoo and Another Vs State of U.P.

Raj Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manna Alias Rahman Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.