Allowed

Brajmohan and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/29833/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Brajmohan and Shivraj in an IPC and Excise Act case, directing their release on bail with personal and surety bonds subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Brajmohan and Shivraj were released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each with specific conditions of not tampering with evidence, cooperating with trial, and refrainin

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29833 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Brajmohan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 164 of 2021, under Section 272 I.P.C. and Section 60(2) of Excise Act, registered at P.S.- Patiyali, District- Kasganj.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicants or on their pointing out. There is no independent witness in the present case. The allegations levelled against the applicants are fully false and baseless and case under Section 272 I.P.C. & 60(2) Excise Act is not made out against them. Further submitted that the alleged recovery is made from an open place and does not belong to the applicants. Criminal history of the applicants has been explained in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit and para no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicants are languishing in jail since 18.06.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the facts as raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicants Brajmohan and Shivraj involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶13

The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicants shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, they shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 VPS

Brajmohan and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajmohan and Another 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

Gyanendra Dhaka Vs State of U.P

Anas Vs State of U.P.

Amit @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Phoolchand Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P.

Yatindra Singh @ Yatindra Yadav Vs State of U.P.