Allowed

Virendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 May 2018BAIL/9968/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, this court granted bail to the applicant in a corruption case involving illegal gratification. The applicant was to furnish a personal bond with two sureties. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond of Rs. one lakh with two sureties, one of whom must be a family member, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearance and trial acceleration.

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9968 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta 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 today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Shahi, learned AGA for State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is said to have been caught read handed accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-. It is further stated that there was some dispute between them and the trap which is laid down is not in accordance with law. The applicant in Jail since 12.12.2017.

¶8

Learned AGA 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 Virendra Kumar Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 207 of 2017, under Sections 7/13 (1) (d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Aahar, District Bulandshahr 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

¶13

counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses 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.

¶15

(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.

¶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

Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Neeraj

¶18

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

Virendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Sharma 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

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

Amit Panchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yatendra Alias Chhotu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Premchand Jaisal Vs State of U.P.

Shankh Raj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others