Criminal Court No. 79 granted bail to the applicant in an offence under the IPC. The court relied on the reformative theory of punishment and a Supreme Court precedent, emphasizing the applicant's lack of prior record and cooperation in trial.
The applicant was released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and two sureties.
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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12798 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Dev Singh Chanchal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Rejoinder Affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Kamal Dev Singh Chanchal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.358 of 2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi during the pendency of trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further contended that the applicant as well as informant both have took franchise from Doorotisers Medical Pvt. Ltd. (Company) and the amount has been deposited by the persons in their account in which Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma is the Director. It is next contended that the applicant himself is the victim of fraud committed by the Company. Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 18.09.2020 having no previous criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for 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 the applicant, Rajesh Kumar Singh involved in 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall 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.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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.
Order Date :- 9.9.2021
S.P.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving offences under the IPC during the pendency of trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶10
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar Singh
State of U.P.
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
