Allowed

Mahendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2020BAIL/47500/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Mahendra, an accused in a case under Sections 304, 504, 34 I.P.C. The order was based on the principle of parity as a co-accused with an identical role had already been admitted to bail by the Court, finding it a fit case for release.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Mahendra was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47500 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harindra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Mahendra in connection with Case Crime No.689 of 2019, under Sections 304, 504, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bisrakh, district Gautambudh Nagar.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a ulterior motive. He submitted that as per post-mortem report two injuries were found, one contusion 25 cm x 18 cm on left side of abdomen to chest with another contusion of 5 cm x 5 cm on the right side of head and the death was caused due to shock and hemorrage. He further submitted that general role has been assigned to the present accused and no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused and four persons were assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased but the deceased has received only two injuries. He further submitted that the co-accused Smt. Munni has been admitted to the concession of bail by another Bench of this Court by order dated 28.09.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21475 of 2020 and the role assigned to the applicant is similar to the role of the other co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail. He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.07.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused and also the fact that the aforesaid co-accused has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Mahenddra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity prof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.11.2020 R./

Mahendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

ravi @ nitin Vs State of U.P.

Govind Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P.

Deepak @ Deep Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.