Allowed

Manish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2023BAIL/50473/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad entertained a bail application filed by Manish. Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, and absence of criminal history or flight risk, the court was of the view that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Manish was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to statutory conditions.

Manish Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238469

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50473 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia,Naresh Kumar Singh

¶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, Sri Naresh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused Abhishek Chaudhary has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 12.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50701 of 2023, copy of which has been produced for perusal. The applicant's role is similar nature and the applicant is entitled to be parity. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 6.10.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the parity.

¶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

¶12

subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in 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 Manish involved in Case Crime No.288 of 2023, under Sections 147, 342, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahr 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 :- 16.12.2023 D. Tamang

¶29

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

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Suarabh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Prince Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sunny Raj Vs State of U.P.

Tapas Pal @ Taapas Pal Vs State of U.P.

Babita Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Shiv Prakash Pal and 5 Others vs State of Up and AOther