DEEN DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a supervisor in Nagar Nigam, Merrut and he along with 50 other persons had freed one Virendra Pratap Singh who was apprehended by the vigilance department for taking illegal gratification and while getting him free, one constable, namely Jai Singh was also injured. It is further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated and general allegations has been leveled against him. It is next contneded that the applicant had no knowledge about filing of charge and has been been implicated due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any previous criminal history. It is lastly contended that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 10.10.2013.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.