Allowed

Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2023BAIL/45889/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of Monu on personal bond and sureties. The court noted the applicant had no criminal history, no proof of flight risk, and no material suggesting witness intimidation or tampering.

What did the court decide?

Refrain: Released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions ensuring non-interference and appearance in court.

Monu Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:222069

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45889 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report was lodged against unknown person. Subsequently, motorcycle in question was recovered from the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated on account of previous dispute with the police. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.8.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶11

It is not the case of the State that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶12

The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in

¶13

nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accusedapplicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.

¶15

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion.

¶16

No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if enlarged on bail.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the 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.

¶19

Let the applicant Monu involved in Case Crime No. 659 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶23

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶24

v. 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶26

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 23.11.2023

¶29

D. Tamang

¶30

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu 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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jaan Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Afzal Alam Vs State of U.P.

Mehboob Alam Vs State of U.P.

Gaya Deen @ Telar Vs State of U.P.