Allowed

Gausulbara v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023BAIL/58537/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant in a case of alleged firing on police. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for nine months and the trial could not be concluded early, as there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance and non-interference with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156215

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58537 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Gausulbara Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivakant,Mohd Faizyab Rahamani,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 272 of 2022 under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Lalauli, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a case of firing on the Police party. No Police personnel has received any injury. In fact, it is the applicant who has received injury on his left leg. False recovery of a country made pistol and a live cartridge has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 9 of the bail application. In all the cases, the applicant has been granted bail by the courts concerned. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2022. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the applicant has remained confined for almost nine months, and after submission of the charge-sheet, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either temper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Gausulbara, involved in aforesaid case be

¶12

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gausulbara v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gausulbara 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

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munabbar Vs State of U.P.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Chotey Khan Vs State of U.P.