This bail application was allowed. The Court held that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution narrative as injuries were minor, the applicant had no criminal history, and had been confined over two months without prospects of early trial.
The applicant was released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties of the same amount.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195529
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43113 of 2023
Applicant :- Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023 S.S.
Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the medical report contradicts the prosecution version.
Whether the applicant has reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Whether the confinement of more than two months justifies enlargement on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tinku
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
