Allowed

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2021BAIL/13850/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case under Section 307 IPC. Considering the length of detention, the counsel's assurance of cooperation, and reliance on appellate precedent, the court allowed the application subject to standard conditions and a requirement to produce a certified court order.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13850 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

This Court has convened through Video Conferencing.

¶6

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.282 of 2019, under sections 307 IPC, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Sonu who was arrested on the spot. It is further contended that general role has been assigned to all the accused and co-accused Sonu has already been granted bail by this Court on 17.1.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2544 of 2020. Another co-accused Ravindra granted bail by order dated dated 9.7.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18949 of 2020. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no.8 of the affidavit. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 18.8.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Sandeep involved in Case Crime No.282 of 2019, under sections 307 IPC, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶14

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(5)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶19

(6) 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

¶20

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are

¶22

strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.6.2021

¶24

SFH

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Shailendra @ Sheelu Vs State of U.P.

Suman Vs State of U.P.

Hadish Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Samir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.