Back
Piyush Baliyan – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for anticipatory bail based on similar co-accused's status. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding co-accused's bail acknowledged by state counsel. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's decision to grant bail with conditions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.164 of 2024, under Sections 307 , 120-B and 34 IPC , Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused, having similar role, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
4. This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel.
5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.
6. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
7. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:-
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
