Allowed

Vineet Alias Tinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/21071/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a bail application filed under Sections 304 and 504 IPC in a case involving death due to injuries. The court granted bail, imposing standard conditions regarding court attendance and absence from trial, pending the conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court and not abuse the liberty granted.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21071 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet Alias Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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. 20 of 2022, under Sections 304, 504 IPC, Police Station Saifai, District Etawah.

¶7

As per the FIR allegation the father of deceased had objected to loud music being played on D.J. by accused persons on which he was abused and four persons including the applicant inflicted blows on account of which he sustained internal injuries. The injured was being taken to hospital and he died in the ambulance itself. The postmortem report is on record as per which the deceased has suffered following four injuries: (1) contusion 3x2 cm present on (R) parental region, (2) multiple contusion present on whole upper part of back, (3) multiple contusion present on (R) lower part of back and (4) contusion 4x2cm present on (R) mid. part of thigh meddle side.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the postmortem injuries do not match with the FIR allegation and that all injuries are on one side which supports defence version that the deceased in drunken state had fallen and because of head injury he went in coma and later died. It is also stated that there is no premeditated act on part of the accused persons since FIR itself contains allegation that incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and there was no intent on part of anyone to kill the deceased. The allegations otherwise are general in nature and none of the injuries are otherwise of a serious nature. It is also contended that the co-accused Rajwati has also been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19847 of 2022 vide order of date. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 25.02.2022 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶9

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶10

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that there was no intention on part of the accused applicant to kill the deceased and the incident has occurred at the spur of the moment and the co-accused Rajwati has also been granted bail; the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶11

Let the applicant - Vineet Alias Tinku involved in aforesaid case 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, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2)

¶18

framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and 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

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.26 15:09:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vineet Alias Tinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Alias Tinku 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

Govind @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Vs State of U.P. though Principal Secretary (Home) and 3 others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Yadav @ Villa Vs State of U.P.

Ramaasrya Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.