Allowed

Abhishek Shakya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2020BAIL/11394/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber judgment grants bail to the applicant in a case involving offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, etc., IPC. Considering lockdown circumstances and lack of incriminating material, the applicant is released on a personal bond with conditions to furnish sureties after lockdown ends and maintain court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond now and two sureties within four weeks of lockdown lift, along with specific conditions regarding court appearance and conduct.

Abhishek Shakya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11394 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Abhishek Shakya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This bail application is being disposed of during the lock down period as per the order dated 04.04.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has sent objection through online, hard copy of the same is taken on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Abhishek Shakya , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.

¶8

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of bail application that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further stated that in the F.I.R., the role of firing has been assigned to three co-accused namely Aditya Gupta @ Janu, Kallu Katari and Akku and specific role of causing injury to the injured has been assigned to co-accused Akku. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Only general role of abusing the victim has been assigned to the applicant. It is also stated that the applicant is student of B. Sc. and he was not present at the place of incident. It is also stated that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and he is in jail since 19.01.2020.

¶9

In the written objection/counter affidavit, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

1.Considering the special circumstances of the lock-down prevailing in the district concerned presently and in the light of the directions of this Court in PIL No. 564 of 2020 dated 06.04.2020, let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing. It is further directed

¶12

that within period of four weeks from the date of lifting of the complete lock-down in the district concerned resulting in resumption of normal functioning of the Courts in that district, the applicant shall furnish two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled necessitating the surrender of the applicant.

¶13

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

¶14

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 declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

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 229A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶19

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶20

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.4.2020 Rmk.

Abhishek Shakya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Shakya 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

Suresh Kumar Pathak and Another Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aasif and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Gyas Vs State of U.P.