Allowed

Sandeep Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021BAIL/24761/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24761 of 2021, the court examined a bail plea in a murder case. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding density of evidence and Article 21, the court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case and allowed bail subject to sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering and cooperation in trial.

Sandeep Pal Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24761 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deena Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yashwant Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Deena Nath, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.29 of 2021, registered under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Karaili, District Allahabad during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per FIR, role of assault has been assigned to all named accused by lathi. The applicant is relative of the deceased. It is contended that general role has been assigned to three accused persons. Nothing has been recovered from the pointing out of the applicant. From the statement of informant it is clear that Lalau, who is involved in the case and co-accused had taken deceased to hospital. Informant, who is brother of deceased, in spite of knowing Lalau and Pradeep are involved in assaulting the deceased permitted him to carry deceased to hospital and also he did not accompany him. Story create doubt. There is no independent witness. The applicant having criminal history of three cases, the same have been explained in para 8 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and having criminal history of three cases, hence, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Considering the material available on record and keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and the Apex Court view pertain to the Article 21 of the Constitution of India held in In human conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re: (2017) 10 SCC 658 and the mandate laid down

¶10

by Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Sandeep Pal, who is involved in the aforesaid 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

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 9.12.2021 Nitin Verma

Sandeep Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Pal 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

Arjun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kishan Vs State of U.P and Another

Kaseem Pasha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satbeer Vs State of U.P.

Kumar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Gautam @ Chintoo Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another