Allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2022BAIL/39706/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of the applicant on humors. The court noted that despite FIR allegations of shooting, no eyewitness recorded a gunshot or found evidence of such. The court held that these facts supported a bail decision without prejudging the case merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39706 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.02 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Falawada, District Meerut.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 04.01.2020 against five named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that while the informant was working in his fields on 03.01.2020 at about 05:00 PM, the accused persons tried to pass their tractor through the informant's standing crop of sugar-cane and upon the informant objecting against it, the accused persons abused the informant and upon seeing other persons coming there, they ran away while threatening the informant. At about 07:00 PM on the same day, the accused persons, carrying sticks and pistols entered the informant's house and the applicant and co-accused Sanoj fired shots with pistols. When some passers-by came upon hearing the hue and cry, the accused persons ran away while threatening and breaking down some households goods.

¶8

4.In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant reiterated the FIR version.

¶9

5.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 10.07.2022.

¶10

6.The Police examined some independent witnesses. One Suraj Singh stated that the accused persons had broken down some households goods of the informant and it was the applicant himself who had got injured in the incident. However, Suraj Singh did not say that any person had fired any shot in the

¶11

incident.

¶12

7.The applicant's criminal history of 12 other cases has been explained in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit, as per which the applicant has been acquitted in 9 of the cases, one case has wrongly be shown in his criminal history and in rest of the two cases, the applicant has been granted bail.

¶13

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶14

9.Having considered aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that although the FIR alleges that the applicant had fired shots with pistols, neither any person has received any gun-shot injury nor has Investigating Officer recorded that he had found any evidence to establish that any gunshot had been fired in the incident; that the witness Suraj Singh has stated that it was the applicant himself who had got injured the incident and he did not say that any gun-shot has been fired by the applicant, without making any observation which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient to make out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶15

10.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

11.Let the applicant Manoj be released on bail in Case Crime No.02 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C, P.S. Falawada, District Meerut on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(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

¶21

evidence.

¶22

12.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.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.12.2022 Deepika/Saurabh

¶24

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.12.22 14:47:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Shama Alias Shyama Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid Khan Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Yaseen@ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Salim Vs State of U.P.

Ramsamujh Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.