Allahabad High Court
Kaptan vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2012
Bench: Vishnu Chandra Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- BAIL No. - 488 of 2012
Petitioner :- Kaptan
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Vivek Pandey,A.P.Misra,Naveen Kr Pandey,Ramendra Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,Surya Kumar
Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The applicant Kaptan is involved in Case Crime No. 186/11, under sections 147, 148,149, 323, 504, 506,324,325 and 308 I.P.C., P.S. Khargoopur, District - Gonda.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the prosecution story two persons, namely, Rinku and Nikkulal kidnapped a girl from the family of the complainant, for this first information report has been lodged against them. In retaliation of lodging F.I.R. against Rinku and Nikkulal the accused persons and their associates attacked on the house of the complainant to cause hurt to Dinanath and also causing injuries to five other persons with Lathi and Garasa. Eight persons including the applicant were named in this case. Co-accused Rinku was also involved in the case relating to kidnapping. This court has refused to grant bail to Rinku vide order dated 4.1.2012 in Bail Application No. 7931 of 2011. The present applicant is said to be armed with Lathi. It is submitted that out of six injured only few lathi injury on their person, though lathi has been attributed to the six persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is not involve in the case of kidnapping. It is further submitted that he is in jail since 28-11-2011 and there is no criminal history of the applicant. All the injury are simple in nature. The bail applicant of Rinku has already been rejected. It is further submitted that the maximum sentence in case u/s 308 I.P.C. is only 7 years. It has further been submitted by the counsel that the applicant is not related with Rinku or his family and is resident of the village and he is falsely implicated in this case. The counsel for the applicant also submit that in case the applicant is admitted to bail he undertake not to visit or harras the complainant or any members of his family.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail with certain conditions :
I. The applicant-Kaptan, involved in the aforesaid case, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.
II. He will appear before the concerned court on every Monday of each month and will not seek any adjournment in the trial.
III. Unless the trial is over, he will not visit the village where the complainant's family is residing.
IV. He will not tamper the evidence of prosecution in any manner and will cooperate to expedite the trial.
Order Date :- 17.5.2012
S. Kumar
