Allowed

Patre v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2020BAIL/28348/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CriminalMisc.BailApplicationNo.28348of2020decidedbyHon'bleSiddharthJ.,CourtNo.70.Thecourtgrantedbailtotheapplicant,Patre,inCrimeNo.79of2020fornillobjectiontosubstantivemeritsbyspecificallyreferencingDataramSinghVs.StateofU.P.(2018)3SCC22underArticle21bailconditionsrelyingonshorttermbailorders.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions regarding tampering with evidence, trial cooperation, and criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28348 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Patre Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Misra,Devendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,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, Patre, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.79 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Tundla, District- Firozabad during pendency of trial.

¶7

Allegation in the first information report is that the applicant snatched mobile phone of the informant and while he was escaping on motor cycle he fell down and caught by the persons on spot.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as mobile phone was never snatched from the informant. It always with the informant. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case after arranging the witnesses of recovery. Applicant is in jail since 19.02.2020 and has no no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶10

Having considered the material on record, 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, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶12

evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

In case the applicant has 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.

¶16

The applicant 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. In case court below is functioning normally, this condition will not apply and applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of bail bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 29.9.2020 SS

Patre v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patre 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

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Mandal Vs Union of India

Pramod Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Tarun Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sunder Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Tyagi @ Amit @ Raju Vs State of U.P.