Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 775 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar Maurya v. State of U. P.

2015-04-10

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2015
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. Heard Sri H. P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this case the applicant was not named in the FIR. The applicant was actually taken by the police from his residence. The applicant was never present on the seen on 14.01.2015 and no recovery was made from his possession. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in his statement the injured Sarad Kumar Mishra has expressed the possibility of gun shot caused on him was made by the Shekhar alias Chandra Shekhar and Jalau and nothing has stated against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in this case the other co-accused Vikas Asthana has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2015 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8282 of 2015 and the case of the applicant stands of identical footing, hence the applicant is also liable to be entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2015. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that a heinous office has been committed by the applicant alongwith other co-accused wherein the victim Sarad Kumar Mishra died later on, and Rs. 3100/- has been recovered from his possession on 14.01.2015. 6. Bail orders of aforesaid co-accused has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant. The same is taken on record. 7. Considering the above submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that another co-accused Vikas Asthana has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2015 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8282 of 2015 and the case of the applicant stands of identical footing, hence the applicant is also liable to be entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2015, therefore, prima facie the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Bail Application Nos. 8282 of 2015 and the case of the applicant stands of identical footing, hence the applicant is also liable to be entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2015, therefore, prima facie the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the applicant Rajesh Kumar Maurya, involved in Case Crime No. 2987 of 2014, under Sections 396, 412, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: - (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed. (iv) The applicant shall report to the police station concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behaviour. 9. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.