Allowed

Neeraj Kumar Kharvar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020BAIL/2722/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application where the applicant contended false implication and lack of flight risk. The Court, considering facts and circumstances without commenting on merits, allowed bail subject to furnishing a bond and sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two heavy reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and cooperation in trial.

Neeraj Kumar Kharvar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2722 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Kharvar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Sarin,Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Compliance affidavit is filed on behalf of State 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.1235 of 2019, under Sections 307, 323, 353, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, applied for bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. He has committed no offence. Prosecution story is false and fake. Applicant is not named in the FIR, his name came into light during investigation on the statement of owner of vehicle who has been granted bail by the Court below. There is only one injury of lacerated wound on the person of victim whereas in the FIR, injuries said to be caused by some sharp weapons. Applicant could not be identified by the victim. Applicant is in jail since 26.11.2019 having no criminal history. 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. 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.

¶10

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

¶11

punishment in case of conviction, allegations levelled against the applicant and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶12

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Neeraj Kumar Kharvar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 :- 6.2.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Neeraj Kumar Kharvar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar Kharvar 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

Prince Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Amir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaggi @ Kadar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Pawan @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Niranjan Singh Vs State of U.P.