Allowed

Sagar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021BAIL/26291/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by Sagar in a case under Sections 307, 504, and 506 IPC, the single judge found it a fit case for bail. The applicant was granted release on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court appearance and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Releasing the applicant on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions of conduct and attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26291 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Nair

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. are present. Learned counsel for the complainant is not present.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 in Case Crime No. 630 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, at Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that there was no motive of the applicant to cause the alleged incident. There is a contradiction between the statement of the victim and the medical report. It has further been submitted that the injury of injured is on a non vital part. It has further been submitted that the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out against the applicant.It has further been submitted that the incident took place on 10.12.2020 and the FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged on 12.12.2020. There is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR but no satisfactory explanation has been given by the prosecution. It has further been submitted that the injured Mohit has been examined and one injury has been found on his left shoulder. It has further been submitted that the injury of injured is simple in nature. It has further been submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history. It has further been submitted that the co-accused Harshit has already been granted bail by the court below, therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 15.3.2021.

¶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 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.

¶11

Let the applicant Sagar, 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 of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.12.2021/ A.

Sagar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar 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

Sonam Verma Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Ramgopal Vs State of U.P.

Afzal Quraishi @ Singham Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Gopal Vs Union of India

Abhishek Vats Vs State of U.P.