In a criminal bail application, the High Court, finding based on the prima facie satisfaction, reformative theory of punishment, and Article 21, distinguished a Supreme Court precedent and granted bail with conditions.
The applicant was released on bail by personal bond and two sureties of Rs. Two Lakh each subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26354 of 2020
Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Farid Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Afzal
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Farid Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/informant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA- I, for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. It is next contended that the ingredients of offences are absent and entire prosecution story is based on false and frivolous allegations. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 29.5.2020, and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant/informant vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment , and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant- Shahrukh, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2020, under Sections - 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police StationNajibabad, District- Bijnor, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. Two Lakh each) (One should be of a family member) before the court concerned subject to following conditions:- :-
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 24.9.2020
ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who is accused of offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC.
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to demonstrate innocence and absence of risk of tampering or flight.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherDistinguished¶8
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shahrukh
State of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
