Allowed

Bijnesh Alias Sanjai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2020BAIL/24490/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed notwithstanding the absence of an affidavit due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The court found the case to be a fit case based on the existence of a cross-version, the nature of a free fight, and the parity in bail orders for co-accused, subject to the condition to file an affidavit within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon execution of personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions including filing an affidavit within 15 days of resumption of swearing.

Bijnesh Alias Sanjai Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24490 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Bijnesh Alias Sanjai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This application has been entertained without an affidavit on account of the extraordinary contingency created by the Covid-19 pandemic where the travel is restricted. This Court notices the fact that there is a declaration by the applicant that he will file an affidavit. This order is being passed, therefore, subject to a certain conditions in this regard.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Bijnesh Alias Sanjai in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 324, 307, 302, IPC, Police Station Dado, District Aligarh.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that this is a case where there is a cross version. The applicant's side have also sustained injuries in regard whereto Case Crime No.27 of 2020 at Police Station Dado, District Aligarh has been lodged against the victim of the present crime. It is submitted that it is a case of a free fight where it is difficult to say, at this stage, as to which side are the aggressors. Both sides have sustained injuries caused by a hard blunt object. It is pointed out that none of

¶9

the victim or the deceased sustained injury caused by a sharp edged weapon, whereas the applicant is alleged to be also armed with a knife and pharsa. It is also argued that identically circumstanced co-accused Vikram Singh has been admitted to bail vide order dated 08.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15808 of 2020. It is next pointed out that two other similarly situate co-accused Yogendra and Banti have been admitted to bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2020 and 10.09.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24670 of 2020 and 26287 of 2020 respectively. It is also pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 12.12.2019.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that it is a case of cross version and a free fight where it is difficult to say, at this stage, as to which side were the aggressors, the fact that there are no injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon, whereas the applicant is shown to be armed with knife and pharsa also, the fact that co-accused Vikram Singh, Yogendra and Banti identically circumstanced have been admitted to bail, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Bijnesh Alias Sanjai in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 324, 307, 302, IPC, Police Station Dado, District Aligarh, be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶18

v) The applicant 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(viii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order

¶22

from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶24

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

It is made clear that in case, an affidavit in support of this application duly sworn is not filed, as declared, within 15 days of resumption of swearing of affidavits, the bail granted to the applicant shall be cancelled.

¶26

Order Date :- 16.9.2020 Deepak

Bijnesh Alias Sanjai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijnesh Alias Sanjai 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

Harpal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohd Hajrat Shekh @ Hajrat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Amreen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vandana Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brahma Pal Vs State of U.P.

Noor Ali Vs State of U.P.