Allowed

Indra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2018BAIL/20535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court accepted that the trap against a Kanoongo charged with corruption did not inspire confidence. The court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with sureties, imposed standard conditions, and directed the trial court to conclude the case within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties; direction to trial court to conclude trial within one year.

Indra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20535 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Indra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Nath Singh Yadav,Sri Satish Trivedi, Sr. Adv. Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shesh Nath Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that petitioner was a Kanoongo and the trap which has been laid against him, does not inspire confidence. The allegation is of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which is said to have been demanded by the petitioner. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2018, hence, the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail but could not controvert the aforesaid facts.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awardable to the applicant, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Indra Pratap Singh Jain involved in Case Crime No. 142 of 2018, under Sections 7/13 (1)(D) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. one lakh with two sureties of (out of which one should a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶12

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶15

(v) It is made clear that if the aforesaid applicant is having passport, he shall surrender the same before the trial court concerned before his release and further he will not leave the country without the permission of this Court.

¶16

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 27.8.2018 A. Mandhani

Indra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh @ Karu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Mateen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanni Yadav @ Mritunjay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Om Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Arvind Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others