Allowed

Sarvesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2021BAIL/10334/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to an applicant facing trial under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act despite opposition from the State. The court imposed strict conditions to prevent abuse of bail and ensure prompt conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of presence and conduct during trial.

Sarvesh Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10334 of 2021 Applicant :- Sarvesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Balwant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing, learned AGA for the State.

¶4

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 427 of 2019, under section 3(i) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Gauri Bazar, DistrictDeoria.

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that two cases have been shown against the accused-applicant in the gang chart, in which the applicant is on bail. Copy of gang-chart and bail order have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 respectively to the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 21.12.2020.

¶6

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶7

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶8

Let the applicant- Sarvesh Singh , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶9

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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

¶10

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶11

(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 IPC.

¶12

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶15

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

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.6.2021 SY

Sarvesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Mishra @ Kapil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Anil Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Vs State of U.P.