Allowed

Manish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2021BAIL/21459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant accused under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, and 506 IPC. The court noted the innocence claim, delay in FIR, and parity with co-accused while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions of appearance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21459 of 2021 Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Singh, Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶2

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶3

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0038 of 2021, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Noorpur, District Bojnor.

¶4

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The incident took place on 08.02.2021 whereas the impugned first information report has been lodged on 10.02.2021 without any explanation regarding delay. As per version of the impugned first information report as well as statement of informant, no serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Only general allegations have been levelled against three accused persons including the applicant and two other persons. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that there is money dispute between informant and the applicant. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused Surya Pratap and Vishal have already been granted bail by another coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated17.08.2021 and 16.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.21174 and 21374 of 2021, copy whereof has been placed on record. He further submits that since the co-accused has already been granted bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is having no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 11.02.2021.

¶5

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶6

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶7

Let the applicant- Manish , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond

¶8

and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶9

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶10

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶11

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶12

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶13

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶17

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶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 :- 2.9.2021/Ajeet

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddi Vs State of U.P.

Phool Chand and Another Vs State of U.P.

Niyaz Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Khiladi Vs State of U.P.

Veerpal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sheru @ Aslam Vs State of U.P.