Allowed

Shiv Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2019BAIL/18893/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving assault and public mischief charges. The application was based on a correction of the detention date in the supplementary affidavit and the argument that no injuries were sustained by the victim. Bail was granted subject to personal bond, sureties, and strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount.

Shiv Prasad Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18893 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record. In the supplementary affidavit it has been explained that due to inadvertent mistake, the date of detention of the applicant has wrongly been typed in the bail application as "15th March, 2018", whereas the correct date of the detention is "15th March, 2019".

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant -Shiv Prasad with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 262 of 2018, under Sections 332, 353, 225, 225B, 186, 452, 504, 336, 427 and 379 I.P.C., Police Station-Kolhuie, District-Maharajganj, Kasganj during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per version of FIR one Ashok, who was caught by the Forest Officer for theft of articles, was forcibly taken away from the custody of Forest Officer by the applicant and others. They also used abusive language and created chaos. It is argued that nothing has been recovered from the possession of Ashok or from the applicant. The only role of beating the officer concerned and creating disturbance has been assigned to the applicant. However, no single injury was found on the body of the prosecution side. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused, namely, Jogendra Sahni has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10th April, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10313 of 2019. the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 15th March, 2019.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual

¶10

submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶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 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.

¶16

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 17.5.2019

¶18

Sushil/-

Shiv Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prasad 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

Kapil Alias Ishu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bachan Vs State of U.P.

Chhota Vs State of U.P.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Bhushan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Lakhvindar Vs State of U.P.