Allowed

Bharat Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2021BAIL/17398/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17398 of 2021, the Single Judge of Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Bharat Pandey, an undertrial accused in a theft case. The court held that no foible was made out by the applicant for bail and prescribed specific conditions for the trial judge to enforce.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17398 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bharat Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

This matter is listed for hearing through video conferencing. Link has been sent to the respective learned counsels. Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are connected through the link.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 382 of 2020, under Sections 454, 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station - Panki, District- Kanpur Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution version is that on 19.8.2020 at about 12:00 to 1 hrs noon the informant and his mother went to second house due to construction of Awas Vikas No. 3 Kalyanpur Kanpur Nagar and when they return at about 7:45 p.m. and saw the main gate was closed by lock but after opening the lock and entered in side they found all article here and there and gold and silver ornaments and cash have been stolen. It has further been submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Name of the applicant first time has been surfaced on the basis of the confessional statement of the main accused, Sonu Rajpoot. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2020.

¶9

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

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Bharat Pandey 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.

¶12

(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 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶18

ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.6.2021 Anuj Singh

Bharat Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Pandey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Hani Tyagi @ Priyank Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Gulfam Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Alias Deepanshu Vs State of U.P.