SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vikas vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2020


?Court No. – 55

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 10300 of 2019

Applicant :- Vikas

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Kumar Sharma

Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant namely Vikas with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 400 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Deorania, District Bareilly.

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all the three witnesses who have been examined during trial before the trial court have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, it has been requested that the applicant should be released on bail. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.8.2018 hence, he is entitled to bail.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and they have submitted that out of three fact witnesses who had been examined during trial, PW-1 informant is not hostile and he has supported the prosecution case.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the court on the basis of last part of the statement of PW-1 informant and it has been argued that the statement shows that he has denied the prosecution case in a last para of his statement.

Considering the facts that the applicant is in jail since 6.8.2018 and statement of PW-1 who is the informant in the case appears to be a kind of mixed statement in which at some places he has stated against prosecution version and in the examination-in-chief and other part of his statement he has supported the prosecution version and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.

Order Date :- 9.1.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation