Allowed

Shivam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2020BAIL/33428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The court discharged the applicant of the charge of theft after administrating a poisonous substance, citing his non-recovery and lack of conviction, while also considering the pandemic situation in prisons.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions including verification of the order due to the pandemic situation.

Shivam Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33428 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shivam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The allegation in the First Information Report is regarding commission of theft after administrating poisonous substance to the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.No recovery has been made from him.The First Information Report is delayed.He is not previous convict. The applicant is in jail since 2.7.2020.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant, Shivam, who is involved in Case Crime No. 109 of 2020 , under Sections 328, 379 I.P.C, Police Station-Lodha , District- Aligarh, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶10

The applicant shall not tamper with the

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶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 :- 17.11.2020 Atul kr. sri.

Shivam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam 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

Guljar Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Karan Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Akib Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Prakash @ C.P Bind Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Vs State of U.P.