Allowed

Ravi Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2021BAIL/18875/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18875 of 2021, the Single Judge rejected the State’s arguments and granted interim bail to the applicant, Ravi Kushwaha, without expressing a final opinion on the case merits, directing the furnishing of personal and surety bonds under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding non-tampering with evidence and cooperation in the trial.

Ravi Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18875 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

List revised. None present for the informant.

¶6

Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant -Ravi Kushwaha, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -30 of 2021, under Sections -302, 201, 394 & 411 I.P.C., Police Station - Maharajpur, District - Kanpur Nagar , during pendency of trial.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶9

(i) against FIR lodged on 04.02.2021, the applicant is in confinement since 25.02.2021;

¶10

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶12

(iv) though chargesheet has already been submitted, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶13

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Only the coaccused Jitendra was last seen. Twenty five days after the arrest of Jitendra, confessional statement has been extracted from that co-accused to falsely implicate the present applicant. No motive has been attributed to the applicant. Recovery is stated to be wholly doubtful/planted. No identification has been made of the applicant and, at present, the applicant is being proceeded against solely on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused;

¶14

(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.12.2021 S.Chaurasia

Ravi Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kushwaha 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

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpi Devi and 5 Others

Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anil Singh and Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat and 2 Others

Naved Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirbhal Singh @ Chhote Sahab Vs State of Up and Another

Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another