Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.

In Chamber

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18672 of 2020

Applicant :- Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Navin Kumar Pandey,Narendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

As per the Office report dated 20.8.2020, an urgency application has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the present bail application through e. mail. The said urgency application has been placed before this Court along with the record.

¶6

Perused the urgency application. The same stands allowed. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

¶7

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through Video Conferencing and perused the record.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant alongwith two other co-accused, namely, Hari Ram and Raj Kumar was involved in the present case. He further submitted that initially the F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 I.P.C. in which the applicant has already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.2.2020 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.6819 of 2020, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 (at pages-18 & 19) to the bail application. He next argued that statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has levelled allegation of rape against the applicant along with coaccused Hari Ram. During the course of investigation, after the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., offence under Section 376D I.P.C. was added along with Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 I.P.C. in the present case. He further argued that the co-accused Hari Ram has been granted bail also in the added Section 376D I.P.C. by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.3.2020 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application 9800 of 2020, copy of which has been obtained from the official website of High Court, the same is taken on record. So far as the co-accused Raj Kumar with whom the victim was having affair is concerned, he has already been granted bail by the Court below vide order dated 29.1.2020 as the victim has not levelled allegation of rape against him. He further

¶9

submits that since the applicant has been granted bail in the present case and the co-accused Hari Ram against whom allegation of rape was levelled, has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 3.3.2020, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in added Section. The applicants have no other criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 13.9.2019.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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 applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant- Veer Singh involved in Case Crime No.216 of 2019 (S.T. No.4 of 2020), under Section 376D I.P.C., Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and the court concerned shall take an undertaking from the sureties that the properties movable/immovable which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them during the pendency of the trial with the following conditions:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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

¶16

him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court & shall furnish an undertaking not to leave the country until permission is obtained by him from this Court or till the conclusion of the trial.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.8.2020 NS

Veer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Singh 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

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hasan @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Smt Ranno Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra @ Monu Vs State of U.P.