Vinod Nishad Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Vinod Nishad Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Vinod Nishad on bail in Case Crime No. 783 of 2020 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to the enumerated conditions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Vinod Nishad, involved in Case Crime No. 783 of 2020 under sections 147, 332, 307, 504, 506, 379, 411 IPC, Section 4/21 Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, should be released on bail.

Court's answer

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it a fit case for bail.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Vinod Nishad was ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Key takeaways

Bail was made subject to conditions: the applicant shall not indulge in any criminal history (as printed), shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses, and shall regularly appear on dates fixed by the trial Court unless his personal attendance is exempted; on default of any condition, the trial Court may cancel the bail without reference to this Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application allowed. Vinod Nishad, accused-applicant in Case Crime No. 783 of 2020, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda (FIR of 20/21.09.2020 alleging illegal sand mining of sand at Muktidham, Rajghat Gate; FIR lodged against Pappu Nishad and 40-50 unknown persons), involved under sections 147, 332, 307, 504, 506, 379, 411 IPC, Section 4/21 Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, was granted bail by Subhash Chand, J. (order dated 7.12.2020). Recorded grounds: applicant not named in the FIR, name came into light during investigation, no-injury case, in jail since 26.09.2020, no criminal antecedents; learned A.G.A. opposed. Without commenting on the merits, the Court directed release on a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (no indulgence in criminal history, no tampering with prosecution evidence, no pressurizing prosecution witnesses, regular appearance before the trial Court), with liberty to the trial Court to cancel bail on default without reference to this Court.

Court No. - 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43741 of 2020

Applicant :- Vinod Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant Vinod Nishad, who is involved in Case Crime No. 783 of 2020, under sections 147, 332, 307, 504, 506, 379, 411 IPC & under Section 4/21 Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Under Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.

The FIR case is that the informant S.I. of Kotwali Banda on 20/21.09.2020 alongwith mines officer and police party left the police station to prevent the illegal mining of sand at the Muktidham, Rajghat Gate. Having seen the police, some persons at the place began to unload the trolly of the sand and also began to flee away. The FIR was lodged against Pappu Nishad and 40 -50 unknown persons in the aforesaid sections, which was registered in Case Crime No. 783 of 2020, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda..

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he was not arrested on the spot. His name came into light during investigation and it is a case of no injury. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 26.09.2020. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Admittedly, it is no injury case. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2020 and the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant Vinod Nishad, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :

(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal history.

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial Court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial Court.

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is given to the trial Court to cancel the bail of the applicant without any reference to this Court.

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Monika