Allowed

Raghuveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2020BAIL/11416/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal court allowed bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case, imposing standard conditions regarding court attendance and prohibiting adjournment-seeking, while also directing compliance with lockdown-related release guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail after furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties on conditions including court attendance and compliance with PCR guidelines.

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11416 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raghuveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shriman Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Raghuveer Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 43 of 2020, under Sections - 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Agra , during pendency of trial.

¶7

From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections - 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 28.1.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 29.1.2020;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iv) learned AGA states that the applicant has criminal history of one similar case;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the present bail application on the ground that there is one similar case against the applicant. Therefore, it has been stated that the applicant is a habitual offender.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it is noted that that all the coaccused namely Nemi Chand, Afaroz Khan, Lokesh,

¶15

Reetiram and Praveen Rawat have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9909 of 2020, 10601 of 2020, 11215 of 2020, 13035 of 2020 and 7780 of 2020 vide orders dated 4.5.2020, 22.4.2020, 22.4.2020, 1.6.2020 and 19.2.2020 respectively. Also, it has been submitted, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months. In the present circumstances, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.

¶16

In any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶17

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Raghuveer Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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 declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

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:

¶28

" 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 accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶29

It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶30

Order Date :- 8.6.2020 Prakhar

Raghuveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer 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

Anand @ Anand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Julfkkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajai @ Pakodi Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Pal Vs State of U.P.

Avnish Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.