Allowed

Satendra @ Haiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2019BAIL/7186/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant alleged under Sections 302/34 IPC, subjecting him to standard conditions. The Court also directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously and ensure witness presence as per Section 309 Cr.P.C. and a Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties; direction for expeditious trial.

Satendra @ Haiya Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7186 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Satendra @ Haiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghav Ram,Ram Lakhan Deobanshi,Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶7

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2018, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Baruasagar, District Jhansi.

¶8

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.

¶9

The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant has been named in the FIR solely on the basis of suspicion; there is no eye-witness account which may show participation of the applicant in the alleged crime; co-accused Sanjai has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court, copy of the said order has been annexed at page no. 45 of the bail application; there is no eye-witness to the incident and nobody has seen the actual incident. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 13.10.2018 with no previous criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Satendra @ Haiya involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶22

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.7.2019 Kuldeep

Satendra @ Haiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra @ Haiya 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

Anuj Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kripal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.