Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Balle vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 November, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44272 of 2017 Applicant :- Balle Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The applicant Balle seeks bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2013, under Sections 307/34 & 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Mauranipur, District- Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that as per prosecution story a revolver has been assigned to the applicant but postmortem report shows that there is no antemortem injury of firearm in the body of the deceased. It is further contended that Rahul Yadav brother of the deceased has been examined as PW1 before the trial court wherein he improved the F.I.R. version and stated that applicant has caused the injury on the deceased from the butt of the revolver. It is further contended that main role has been assigned to co-accused Santram who caused the fatal injury on the head of the deceased with axe and from whom the alleged weapon axe has been recovered. It is next contended that role of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused Santram. It is next contended that co-accused Pappu has already been granted bail by the Session Court. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.10.2017 and the applicant has no any criminal antecedents except the present one.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. However, he admitted that accused-applicant has no criminal history.
Seeing the facts of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material brought on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I think it is a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Balle involved in Case Crime No. 282 of 2013, under Sections 307/34 & 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Mauranipur, District- Jhansi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall co-operate in the investigation.
2. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
3. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
4. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 28.11.2017 AKT
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Balle vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 November, 2017
Judges
  • Ravindra Nath Kakkar
Advocates
  • G S Chauhan