Allowed

Satendra @ Tallu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023BAIL/5839/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, who was accused in a murder case. Granting bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused already released on bail, the Court imposed standard bail conditions including furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to five specific conditions.

Satendra @ Tallu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5839 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Satendra @ Tallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Singh,Shashank Shekhar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.214 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Narhi, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Ramashray, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49482 of 2022. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2022, having no criminal history. The case of the applicant is at par with the coaccused person who has been enlarged on bail as the co-accused person was the owner of the said vehicle and the applicant is stated to be the driver of it. There is no evidence against the applicant except the confession of the accused in custody. The applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation , MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 , and without expressing any opinion on

¶12

the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let the applicant- Satendra @ Tallu involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satendra @ Tallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra @ Tallu 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shilendra Vs State of U.P.

Gandhi Pal Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ramdular Vs State of U.P.

Janak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Prince Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others