Allowed

Sujeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018BAIL/35505/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Sujeet Kumar Singh alleging false implication and lack of criminal history. Court granted bail despite not expressing an opinion on merits, citing prima facie satisfaction and reasonable apprehension of witness tampering. Bail granted with strict conditions regarding attendance and non-misuse.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and witness conduct.

Sujeet Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35505 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kr. Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the co-accused Kaushal Singh Kushwaha has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2018. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name is came into light in the statements of co-accused Deepak Mishra and Kaushal Singh Kushwaha after a gap of about seven months. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶7

The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2017. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant, namely, Sujeet Kumar Singh involved in Case Crime No.2710 of 2016, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶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 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 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

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 Anupam S/-

Sujeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Bhagwati Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Rinkoo Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.