Sandeep Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1607 of 2020

Applicant :- Sandeep Tiwari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It is urged that the applicants have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 5.11.2019 and 20.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45957 of 2019 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50662 of 2019, respectively. It is urged that initially applicants were alleged to have committed offence under Section 304 IPC, subsequently, Section 326 has been added; the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case; hence, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail; applicants having no other reported criminal antecedent are languishing in jail since 2.12.2019.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Let the applicants- Sandeep Tiwari and Gaurav involved in Case Crime No. 1082 of 2019 under Sections 326 I.P.C., Police Station Phase-3 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of their family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they

¶11

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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicants 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 them, in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.1.2020 S.Prakash

Sandeep Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonmati Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Ojha Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Seema Devi Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Maya Gupta Vs State of U.P.