Allowed

Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020BAIL/3955/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a murder case. The court allowed bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused, noting the applicant's prior acquittals, while clarifying the order's limited effect on the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, attending court, and unlawful activities.

Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3955 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadaful Islam Jafri,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ashutosh Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of first informant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri counsel for the applicant, learned AGA on behalf of the State and Sri S. Lal, holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 272 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34 I.P.C, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 17.06.2019 by the first informant against five accused persons namely Abhishek Sharma, Aseem Sharma, Dimple Saxena, Chandrashekhar Sharma and Dushyant Sharma @ Kaka alleging inter-alia that her husband (Saurabh Sharma) was killed on 16.06.2019 by the accused persons. In the FIR specific role of causing injury on the head of the deceased has been assigned to Abhishek Sharma and role of catching hold has been assigned to accused Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Aseem Sharma, Dimple Saxena and Dushyant Sharma @ Kaka. It is next submitted that informant, who is wife of the deceased in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has changed the prosecution version and assigned different role to the accused persons. She in her statement under section 161 Cr.,P.C. has stated that accused Chandra Shekhar Sharma and Dushyant Sharma @ Kaka caused injury to deceased by saria. Accused/applicant- Vipin Sharma, Aseem Sharma and Dimple Saxena caused injury to deceased by knife and accused Abhishek Sharma caused injury to deceased by rod of pedestal fan. Pawan Pathak, who is brother of the informant and eye

¶9

witness also in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the version of the first informant (wife of the deceased), as narrated in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Main substratum of argument of Sri Jafri is that since the co-accused Dushyant Sharma alias Kaka has been granted bail by order dated 13.11.2019 of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 48647 of 2019, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, one under Sections 416, 452, 328, 307, 506, 352 IPC registered as Case Crime No. 503 of 2006 and another under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC registered as Case Crime No. 261 of 2006, in both the cases, the applicant was acquitted.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail. However, he has not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶11

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant while opposing the bail do not dispute the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant as well as eye witness Pawan Pathak (brother of informant). There is no dispute about acquittal of present applicant in the aforesaid Case Crime Nos. 503 of 2006 and 261 of 2006. Prosecution case with regard to role assigned to the applicant is different in the FIR as well as in the statement of informant. It is also not disputed that role assigned by first informant and brother of first informant in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. to coaccused Chandra Shekhar and Dusyant Sharma @ Kaka are same, therefore, this Court finds that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. However, it is made clear that since the applicant is being granted bail on the ground of parity of bail order of co-accused Chandra Shekhar, therefore, benefit of this order will not be extended to other co-accused persons of this case.

¶13

Let the applicant Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of the court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

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 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Noman

Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma 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

Atul Vs State of U.P.

Faijal Khan Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Shilendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahzad Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.