Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Munish Sharma v. State Of U.p

Munish Sharma v. State Of U.p

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16978 of 2022 | 04-07-2022

Mohd. Aslam, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been moved on behalf of applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.143 of 2021, under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471, 304, 120B I.P.C. & Section 60A of Excise Act, Police Station Gabhana, District Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further contended that the applicant is not the owner of the shop. It is further contended that according to prosecution the applicant alongwith other persons was running the shop. It is further contended that the applicant was not arrested from the place of occurrence. It is further contended that according to prosecution co-accused Anil Chaudhary, who has been assigned the same role, has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16333 of 2022. It is further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 1.6.2021 and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail, but he has not disputed the above fact that the co-accused Anil Chaudhary has been enlarged on bail.

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

7. Let the applicant Munish Sharma involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Advocate List
  • Narayan Singh (Kushwaha)

  • G.A.

Bench
  • Hon'ble Justice Mohd. Aslam
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2022/10344
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Grant of — U/S 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471, 304, 120B IPC and S. 60-A, Excise Act — Alleged sale of spurious liquor — Co-accused already enlarged on bail — A fit case for bail — Bail granted — Sureties and conditions, as per settled law, imposed (Paras 5 to 9)