Allowed

Tej Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2020BAIL/10571/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the bail application of the applicant in a murder and conspiracy case. Noting the lack of direct evidence correlating the applicant to the crime and the conclusion of investigation, the court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to additional conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Tej Pratap Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to additional conditions.

Tej Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10571 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Tej Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sahai, the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.412 of 2019, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Hata, District- Kushinagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

For the purposes of evaluating the prayer for bail, the Court notes that that no direct evidence correlating the applicant to the commission of the crime has been collected. The weapon which is stated to have been recovered on the pointing of the applicant, is unstained and presently the prosecution rests on an alleged admission made by the applicant while in custody. The Court is further apprised that co-accused Ram Gopal Singh has been accorded the facility of bail in terms of the order passed on Criminal Misc. Bail Application 2597 of 2020. The Court takes further note of the fact that the investigation has concluded and a charge-sheet submitted. It has next been submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Tej Pratap Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶17

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a

¶18

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶20

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶21

Order Date :- 17.6.2020 Vivek Kr.

Tej Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Pratap 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Muneer @ Goli Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Ashkar Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Lokendra Vs State of U.P.

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P.