Allowed

Deepak and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2020BAIL/13517/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application concerns Deepak and Another, accused of snatching. The court noted allegations of false implication and lack of public witnesses for recovery. Considering jail overcrowding due to the pandemic and Article 21, without commenting on merits, bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding non-tampering and cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13517 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The allegation against the applicants is of snatching of mobile phone of the informant. It is submitted that applicants were not named in the First Information Report.They have been falsely implicated in this case. Subsequently recovery of robbed mobile phone has been allegedly made from them. There is no public witnesses of the recovery.Recovery was planted against them.The applicant is in jail since 6.10.2019.The criminal history of the applicants has been explained in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid fact..

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicants, Deepak and Laliya, who is involved in Case Crime No. 745 of 2019, under Section 392 I.P.C, Police Station-Akbarpur , DistrictKanpur Dehat, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further,

¶10

before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

In case the applicants have 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.

¶15

The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 7.9.2020 Atul kr. sri.

Deepak and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalbe Haider Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Kant Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.

Anis Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Dutta Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Alias Bhoop Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bitto Kumar Mishra @ Ratnesh Vs State of U.P.