Allowed

Shashipal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018BAIL/23147/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with fraud and corruption offences. The court imposed strict conditions, including surrendering passports and appearing on specific dates, while also directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond of Rs. one lakh, two sureties, and strict conditions including passport surrender and appearance on fixed dates.

Shashipal Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23147 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shashipal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Shukla,Radhey Shyam Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned A.G.A. for the State and the same is taken on record.

¶6

Herd Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of complaint made by the applicant himself. He has further submitted that the allegation for taking money of Rs. 3 lakhs was against the co-accused Vipin Kumar. He has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 13.04.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the state has opposed the prayer for bail but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.

¶9

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 appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Shashipal involved in Case Crime No. 291 of 2018, Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act-1988, Police StationIglas, District-Aligarh, 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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 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 :- 2.8.2018 JK Yadav

Shashipal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashipal 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

Alakesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anita Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ahsan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dwarika Singh Rajpoot and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and Another