Court allowed bail application. Applicants, Natresh and Vinod, charged with IPC offences, sought release citing settlement and parity with co-accused.
Applicants released on bail with personal bond, two sureties each, subject to specific conditions against tampering and commission of offences.
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. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22419 of 2022
Applicant :- Vinod @ Bintu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Kumar Mishra,Adesh Kumar,Rajesh Kumar,Shobit Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Vinod @ Bintu and Naresh with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 986 of 2015, under Sections 323, 308, 452, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, District Agra during pendency of trial.
As per prosecution story, on 20.12.2012 when the informant and his father were at their house, at about 5 p.m. the applicants along with other co-accused having lathi, danda and farsa in their hands, have forcibly entered their house and battered the informant and his father badly. On account of which both, the informant and his father, sustained grievous injuries. The charge sheet was filed on 04.04.2016 without arresting the applicants and N.B.W. was issued against the applicants. They were arrested on 02.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that during investigation, the parties had settled their dispute and entered into a compromise. A compromise deed was also signed by both the parties. Therefore, they did not make any inquiry about the charge sheet and did not appear in Court on filing of the charge sheet. It has also been stated that co-accused Babloo, similarly circumstanced as the applicant, has been released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Agra vide order dated 13.01.2016 passed in Bail Application No. 14 of 2016, entitling the applicants to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is in the last submitted that the applicants are languishing in jail since 02.05.2022 and in case the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the averments made by the accused-applicants .
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that identically circumstanced co-accused Babloo has already been enlarged on bail, the fact that the applicants have explained satisfactorily the reasons for not appearing in Court after the charge sheet was filed, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the applicants are entitled to bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .
Let the applicants Vinod @ Bintu and Naresh involved in the aforementioned case be released on bail on executing their personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicants shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicants 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before the Court concerned.
Order Date :- 10.11.2022 Brijesh Maurya
Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.11.10 17:31:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a warrant of bail be granted to the applicants considering the nature of offences and the principles of parity?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bail Application No. 14 of 2016Referred¶8
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod @ Bintu and Naresh
Surendra Singh
Brijesh Maurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
