Sahran @ Shiva Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45442 of 2020 Applicant :- Sahran @ Shiva Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 1043 of 2016, at Police Station- Kannauj, District- Kannauj on 03.11.2016, under Sections 395, 397, IPC.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Kannauj on 16.01.2018.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 06.12.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel contends that the applicant was not named in the FIR. False recovery has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness of the recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prior to this case the applicant did not have any criminal history. However, after the instant case the applicant was falsely implicated in a number of criminal cases, in which FIRs were lodged against unknown accused persons.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.

¶10

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sahran @ Shiva be released on bail in Case

¶13

Crime No. 1043 of 2016, S.S.T. No. 33 of 2017, at Police Station- Kannauj, District- Kannauj, under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC., registered on 03.11.2016 at Police Station- Kannauj, District- Kannauj, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 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 party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶19

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(vii) 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 Pravin

Sahran @ Shiva v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahran @ Shiva 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

Furqan Alam Vs State of U.P.

Smt Guddan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hradesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Madhuri Gond Vs the Court of Principle Judge and Another

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P.

Talib Vs State of U.P.