Allowed

Vikash Sharma @ Vikky Thekedar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2018BAIL/32479/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a Section 307/304/306 IPC matter, noting his surrender after a non-bailable warrant was issued due to unavoidable circumstances. The order imposes strict conditions regarding trial attendance and directs expedited trial completion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Application granted; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of appearance and case expeditious trial.

Vikash Sharma @ Vikky Thekedar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32479 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vikash Sharma @ Vikky Thekedar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the due to some unavoidable circumstances, the applicant could not appear before the court on the dates fixed. It has further been stated that due to non appearance, non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant and when it came to the knowledge of the applicant he without further delay surrendered before the lower court on 3.11.2017 and was sent to jail. The applicant undertakes to appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed by the trial court. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 3.11.2017.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Vikash Sharma @ Vikky Thekedar, involved in S.T. No. 1082 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No.397 of 2014, under Section 307,504,506 IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount 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 proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed

¶13

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 applicant is 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

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.9.2018

¶17

ssm

Vikash Sharma @ Vikky Thekedar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Sharma @ Vikky Thekedar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akbal Jahan Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Vs State of U.P.

Anit Kumar @ Jhandu Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Khan Vs State of U.P.