Allowed

Saurab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2021BAIL/21003/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a lathigiri and murder attempt case. The court invoked constitutional powers and a prior PIL regarding COVID-19 lockdown restrictions to release the accused on a personal bond without immediate sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount, compliant with COVID-19 directions regarding surety availability.

Saurab Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21003 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Saurab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Mabood Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

The Court convened through video conferencing.

¶6

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Imran Mabood Khan, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

As per prosecution case, 6 nominated persons are said to have apprehended and assaulted with lathi and danda causing injury to Arshad and Tanveer; as per medical report, Arshad has incurred simple injury; Tanveer has been inflicted with one incised wound 1.5 x 0.4 bone deep; other injuries are simple in nature; injured Tanveer was admitted in PGI in state of coma and after two months he was discharged.

¶8

It is urged that in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the injured Arshad, it has been categorically stated that all six nominated persons assaulted with lathi and danda; further, author of the injury has not been identified by the injured Arshad in his statement; general role has been assigned to all the assailants. It is further urged that the incised wound could not have been caused by hard and blunt object; Investigating Officer in the case diary has noted the injury of Tanveer stating that on perusal of the medical report submitted by the District Hospital, Saharanpur, there is one incised wound caused by sharp weapon. In this backdrop, it is urged that applicant has been falsely implicated in party bandi; applicant has no criminal history; co-accused Shamsh, Tabrez and Babar have been enlarged on bail by this Court on 18.06.2021; applicant claims parity. It is further submitted that two persons have been injured on the side of the applicant for which there is no explanation by the prosecution; applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2021, there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant and 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.

¶10

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 tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Let the applicant Saurab involved in Case Crime No. 63 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 307, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, be released on bail on his

¶12

furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid19, 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.

¶21

The order reads thus:

¶22

"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."

¶23

Order Date :- 22.6.2021 K.K. Maurya

¶24

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2021.06.23 17:16:51 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurab 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

Ashraf Ali Vs Motor Accident Claim TRIBUNAL/1ST Additional District Judge and 6 Others

Rajeev Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Kukreja Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zaya Akhtar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.