Allowed

Sikandar and Anotehr v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2021BAIL/24593/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The court found it a fit case for bail for the applicants without commenting on the merits, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Releasing the applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24593 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sikandar And Anotehr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 135 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 436, 427, 151, 152, 153, 186, 189, 120B, 395, 188 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 51 Disaster Management Act at P.S. Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants are poor shop keepers and they have no concern with Ravi Nishad and Kodai Nishad. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that there is no specific role assigned to the applicants but due to malice the police booked them showing apprehended from the spot. It is also submitted by him that no one has claimed to have sustained any injury in the alleged incident. There is no public witness of the alleged incident and the recognition of accused taking part in the alleged incident. The applicants are having no criminal history and they are in jail since 6.5.2021. Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants undertake that in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity

¶11

of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicants- Sikandar and Surendra Nishad, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on thier 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.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANTS 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.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANTS 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.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS 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 THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(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 APPLICANTS.

¶18

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 30.7.2021 SY

Sikandar and Anotehr v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar and Anotehr 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

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Liyakat Alias Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Asfaq Alam Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Akhtar @ Insar Vs State of U.P.

Rahul @ Kala @ Shaka Vs State of U.P.

Kalim Natt Vs State of U.P.