Allowed

Gaurav @ Aditya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2022BAIL/14805/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant charged under the IPC. The Court found merit in the counsel's submission that the prosecution evidence did not connect the applicant with the offence and noted discrepancies in the police recovery.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Gaurav @ Aditya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14805 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav @ Aditya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Babu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 263 of 2021 at Police Station Sureer, District Mathura, under Sections 41, 102, 414, 420 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 17.10.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, on 02.02.2022.

¶7

Shri Vijay Babu, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. One country made pistol and two live cartridges has been shown as recovered from the applicant. Recovered items were planted on the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of the police investigators. Recovered articles are not relatable to the crime in this case. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶8

Explaining the criminal history of the applicant learned counsel for the applicant contends that being from economically weaker section of the society the

¶9

applicant has become an easy scapegoat for the police authorities who have falsely implicated the applicant in the said cases to burnish their credentials. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in the said cases. The said cases do not relate to heinous crimes and have no bearing on this bail application. The applicant is not a flight risk.

¶10

Shri Ashutosh Pandey, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned brief holder does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶11

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Gaurav @ Aditya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.4.2022 Pravin

¶20

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.04.12 11:58:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav @ Aditya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav @ Aditya 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

Shiva Malik Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Bullu Vs State of U.P.

Ashif and Another Vs State of U.P.

Perminder Vs State of U.P.

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Noor Mohammad @ Thegan Vs State of U.P.