Allowed

Santosh Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2021BAIL/13775/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in a second application due to trial delays and dispute settlement. The court allowed bail on a personal bond, citing changed circumstances, referring to PIL directions on releasing accused without sureties during lockdown, and imposing conditions to ensure trial cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13775 of 2021 Applicant :- Santosh Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra

¶3

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 15.4.2020.

¶6

It is urged that the changed circumstances in filing the instant application is that the trial is not proceeding despite expedite order passed by this Court; it is not disputed by learned counsel for the first informant that parties have settled the dispute outside the Court; it is urged that coaccused, Brijesh Kumar Pandey has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.1.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28697 of 2019; the applicant has no other criminal antecedent; he is languishing in jail since 11.2.2019; the trial is not likely to be concluded expeditiously in the near future. Applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not seek unnecessary adjournments except with the leave of the court, he further undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of

¶9

the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant - Santosh Srivastava involved in Case Crime No. 42 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411, 419, 420 IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the I.T. Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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. In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶18

The order reads thus:

¶19

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶20

Order Date :- 16.12.2021

¶21

Arif

Santosh Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Srivastava 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allahabad Development Authority Vs Presiding Officer and Another

Sheshveer Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Ramakant Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Mamta Katheria Vs State of U.P.

Man Singh Vs Union of India through Intelligence Officer

M/S Manish Engineering Enterprises Thru Prop. Vs Indian Farmers Fertilizer Coop. Ltd. Thru M.D. and Ors.