Allowed

Mansingh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021BAIL/42395/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant Mansingh in a criminal case involving IPC offenses and the Mines and Minerals Act, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not interfering with witnesses and cooperating in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and cooperating in the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42395 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mansingh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Marjeet Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Marjeet Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Mansingh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station - Jhinjhana, District - Shamli , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) against FIR lodged on 2.7.2021, the applicant is in confinement since 25.8.2021;

¶9

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶10

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶11

(iv) though investigation is pending yet at present no justifiable cause has been shown to continue the detention of the applicant for an indefinite period;

¶12

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is 70 years of age and lease deed has also been cancelled. Certain other persons were involved in the occurrence. The applicant has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that, earlier, lease was existed in favour of

¶13

the applicant.

¶14

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

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) The applicants 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 applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 Prakhar

Mansingh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansingh 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

Varun Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Salamatullah Vs Board of Revenue

Smt. Prema Devi Vs Court of S.D.O and 3 Others

Pankaj Rathaur Vs State of U.P.

Lokendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.