Allowed

Shanker v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2022BAIL/17155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the bail application of the applicant, Shanker, involved in a murder case. The court distinguished the applicant's role of 'exhortation' from that of co-accused offenders, finding a separate basis for granting bail despite the gravity of the charge.

What did the court decide?

The applicant, Shanker, was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17155 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shanker Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav,Dinesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuber Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 324 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Pawai, District Azamgarh.

¶7

As per the prosecution version the grant daughter of the informant was inflicted knife injury by co-accused Kallu on the exhortation of Tara Devi and Shanker.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant states that the co-accused Tara Devi who has also been assigned similar role in the FIR has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4064 of 2022 vide order dated 25.3.2022. Bail has also been granted to co-accused Shani in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4068 of 2022 vide order dated 21.4.2022.

¶9

Argument is that the applicant is entitled to parity in the matter of grant of bail with co-accused Tara Devi.

¶10

Learned AGA as well as Sri Kuber Singh Yadav have been heard on behalf of the respondents. Although the grant of bail is opposed but it is not disputed that Tara Devi, against whom similar role has been assigned in the FIR has been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant which is distinguishable from the role of co-accused Kallu @ Sagar and the co-accused Tara Devi has been granted bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity

¶13

of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Shanker , 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 concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after her release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶18

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 n.u.

¶22

Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.05.20 11:17:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shanker v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanker 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Munnalal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Yadav Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saeed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Chukkha Vs State of U.P.