Allowed

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2021BAIL/16461/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving IPC Sections 323, 504, 325, 308, and 506. The court noted co-accused had been granted bail and injuries were simple. Bail was granted with four specific conditions regarding courtroom presence and non-tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and mandating attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16461 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Akhand Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravikant Shukla,Raksha Chauhan,Rishi Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 325, 308, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against two named and two unknown persons. He further submits that co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Gama and Shyam Bihari have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.08.2019 and 30.09.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.29335 of 2019 and 40496 of 2019. He further submits that as per statement of the injured, role of beating has been assigned to Santosh Kumar Chaurasiya @ Mahakal and as per injury report, he has received three injuries which are simple in nature. As per statement of the informant Mudit Bajpayee, all the four accused hurled filthy languages and started beating on account of which he fell down then Santosh Kumar Chaurasiya @ Mahakal bet him badly by legs and fists and applicant bet Prateek Shukla. It is also submitted that the case of the applicant is identical to coaccused. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.01.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submit that applicant is serving in police department and after issuing of process under Section 80, 82, he has appeared before the court and on account of injury caused by the applicant and coaccused injured Mudit Bajpayee has received grievous injuries,

¶9

therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as per statement of informant applicant and co-accused started beating and he applicant beat and Prateek Shukla, who received simple injuries in nature, enlargement of co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Akhand Pratap Singh involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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 229-A 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

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

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶17

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.6.2021 Jitendra

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhand Pratap 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

Autari Vs State of U.P.

Rohtash Vs State of U.P.

Salal Husain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Veer Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P.

Govind Vs State of U.P.