Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Bineeta vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|18 December, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48292 of 2018 Applicant :- Bineeta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Arimardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. regarding incident dated 13.6.2018 of which F.I.R. was lodged by Kashmir Singh; that in the incident in question Guddi @ Nisha Devi is alleged to have been beaten by all the accused persons by Lathi-Danda etc. and died due to injuries sustained in the incident; that applicant has not been assigned with any specific weapon or any specific role in causing injuries to deceased; that real fact is that first informant and his associates committed mar-pit with co-accused in which four persons sustained injuries and F.I.R. was lodged by father of co-accused Ajit through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at Case Crime No.238 of 2018; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant; that applicant had no motive to commit the incident in question or participate in the incident; that first informant Kashmir Singh and his associates were aggressors; that co-accused Sipahi Lal has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45123 of 2018, copy produced for perusal which is taken on record; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 9.10.2018.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused, version and cross- version of cross cases as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Bineeta be released on bail in Case Crime No.81 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506/34 I.P.C., P.S. Indargarh, District Kannauj, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Kpy
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

Bineeta vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
18 December, 2018
Judges
  • Harsh Kumar
Advocates
  • Jadu Nandan Yadav Arimardan Yadav