Allowed

Krishna Pad Vishwas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 May 2023BAIL/10159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application. The court considered the applicant's hostility-free involvement, the lack of criminal history, and the hostile testimony of the sole prosecution witness (PW1) who failed to corroborate the case. The grant of bail was conditioned on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and witness influence.

Krishna Pad Vishwas Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99430

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10159 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Pad Vishwas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 418 of 2021, under Section 15/3 Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and 419, 420, 304 of IPC, Police Station Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. It is further submitted that deceased did not die due to ill treatment given by the applicant. It is further submitted that during post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. It is also submitted that during trial informant examined as PW1 and he did not corroborate the prosecution version and has turned hostile. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.01.2023 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.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that

¶12

informant/PW1 did not corroborate the prosecution version and turned hostile during trial, 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.

¶13

Let the applicant Krishna Pad Vishwas in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.5.2023 AKT

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Pad Vishwas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Pad Vishwas 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

Nadeem @ Kalu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Saroj Devi Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Raj Singh @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gul Mohammad Vs State of U.P.