Back
MANMOHAN, DIPANKAR DATTA
Arun Kumar Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's bail application rejected. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding pending charges and evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court considers co-accused's bail status. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court grants bail with conditions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. clarification on bail implications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by the impugned judgment and order dated 28th August, 2024 has rejected the appellant's prayer for bail.
3. The appellant, figuring as an accused in FIR No. 0005 dated 6th January, 2021 registered with Police Station Khampur, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, is in custody since 16.09.2023. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant committed offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 409 read with 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
5. Although the police report (charge-sheet) has been filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 12th December, 2023, the charges are yet to be framed. The prosecution proposes to examine 18 (eighteen) witnesses to support its case.
6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that co-ac
The court established that continued detention pending trial is unjustified when charges have been framed but the trial has not commenced, warranting the grant of bail.
The court granted bail in anticipation of arrest, emphasizing that such a decision does not reflect on the merits of the case.
Anticipatory bail can be granted where accused is cooperating in investigation and no more custodial interrogation is required in the case.
The court established that when an investigation is completed and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, continued pre-trial incarceration may be unjustified, warranting t....
The court granted bail to a septuagenarian accused, emphasizing that prolonged detention pending trial is unwarranted, while clarifying that this does not affect the merits of the case.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the consideration of contentions, absence of a test identification parade, and opposition by the Public Prosecutor citing the petitioners' criminal ant....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
