Lokendra v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a criminal miscellaneous bail application filed by Lokendra, holding he made out a fit case as co-accused were already on bail and he had no prior history.
What did the court decide?
Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.
What the court decided
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4453 of 2022
Applicant :- Lokendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sohit Prakash Sharma,Saurabh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police in the present case on the basis of statement made by co-accused namely Aman, Munendra Kumar & Dalveer Singh who were arrested by the police. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of this applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Aman, Suresh Kumar @ Teetu & Dalbeer have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos43740 of 2021, 43741 of 2021 & 44508 of 2021 vide orders dated 22.11.2021, 15.11.2021 & 15.12.2021. There is no criminal history against the applicant except cases registered against him subsequent to this incident. The case of this applicant stands on similar footing to that of co-accused persons. Applicant is languishing in jail since 24.06.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Lokendra
Coram
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Subhash Chandra Sharma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/4453/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court