Single judge of Courts of No. 79 allowed bail application of Mahesh Kumar in a criminal case under Sections 364A, 386, 120B, 411 and 506 IPC, granting release on personal and surety bond subject to conditions.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7064 of 2021 Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh K.S. Chaudhary,A Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Chandra Pandey
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant and Counter Affidavit filed by learned Counsel for the informant are taken on record.
Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.71 of 2020, under Sections 364A, 386, 120B, 411 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Highway, District Mathura during the pendency of trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged after two months by the police officials on hearsay and there is no evidence against the applicant except the extra judicial confession or the confessional statement, which has no evidentiary value. It is next contended that the recovery of Rs.52,000/- shown from the possession of the applicant is forged and planted one for which there is no independent public witness and the money recovered from his possession was his own money by which he was going to purchase buffalo. It is also contended that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the co-accused, Nitesh @ Ragal @ Reegan has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.35654 of 2020, the applicant having identical role to that of the co-accused is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 31.07.2020 having criminal history of six cases, which has been explained in paragraph nos.3, 4, 5 6, & 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 06.12.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant, Mahesh Kumar involved in 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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.
Order Date :- 3.9.2021
S.P.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a non-bailable offence during the pendency of trial.
Whether the co-accused's bail grants parity for the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Kumar
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rajiv Joshi
Parties & counsel
