Court granted bail to Harendra Bharti in a FIR relating to Sections 307 IPC and Prevention of Damages to Public Property. Bail was allowed based on allegations of false implication and lack of injury to police, with conditions on furnishing bond and sureties.
Release on bail subject to 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. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35099 of 2022
Applicant :- Harendra Bharti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Gupta,Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard Sri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 165 of 2022, under Sections 307, 120B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that it is a case of firing on the police party where none of the police personnel suffered any kind of injury. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2022 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Harendra Bharti in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 14.9.2022 Mohit
Digitally signed by MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.09.15 11:21:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail on grounds of innocence and lack of prior criminal record.
Whether conditions including personal bond and sureties are sufficient to secure the applicant's appearance and prevent tampering with evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and AnotherExplained¶9
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Harendra Bharti
State of U.P.
Harendra Bharti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
