Allowed

Amit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2022BAIL/4603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge criminal court allowed bail to the applicant Amit in a case concerning Sections 279, 308, 354, 504, and 506 IPC. The court found merit in the applicant's submission that the case arises from a traffic argument and lacks sufficient grounds for imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Amit released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding non-tampering and appearing before the trial court.

Amit Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4603 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gorakh Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Vinay Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 1254 of 2021 at Police Station Phase-3 District Gautam Budh Nagar under Sections 279, 308, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 18.12.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Gautam Budh Nagar on 18.01.2022.

¶7

Shri Vinay Prakash Shukla, learned counsel and Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The criminal case arises out of an argument at a traffic congestion point which suddenly turned violent. The F.I.R. assigns a general and vague role in the assault to the applicant. The applicant has not been identified as the principal offender who inflicted grievous injuries on the injured. There are contradictions in the version of the F.I.R. and the statement of the witness which discredit the prosecution

¶8

case. The victim has not suffered any life threatening injury and has since been recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶9

Shri Rajesh Mishra, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Amit be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make

¶17

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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.6.2022 Dhananjai

¶20

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.06.14 14:34:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenu Sain Vs State of U.P.

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Gulzar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rahmat Ali Vs State of U.P.