Allowed

Amit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2021BAIL/31992/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granted bail to Amit Kumar Singh, an accused in a criminal case involving Sections 147, 148, 304, 308 IPC, citing parity with a co-accused who was already released. Imposed strict conditions regarding court appearances and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond; to furnish two sureties within one month of restoration of court functioning.

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31992 of 2020 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶3

Despite of the best efforts Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant could not be connected virtually on account of technical glitch.

¶4

With the aid and help of learned AGA, I am proposing to decide this bail application on merits.

¶5

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.73 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 304, 308, 324, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Sarpataha, District-Jaunpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant who is in jail since 20.05.2020.

¶6

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that though the applicant is one of the named accused person out of five. It is further contended that Jitendra Singh one of the coaccused was admitted on bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47788 of 2020 by order dated 18.02.2021, learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with co-accused Jitendra Singh. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has got criminal antecedent of one cases, which is duly explained.

¶7

Learned A.G.A is unable to point out any point of distinction between them.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and adopting the same reasoning as has given in the order granting bail to co-accused Jitendra Singh and applies the principle of parity, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant-Amit Kumar Singh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶10

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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.

¶11

(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶12

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS

¶13

FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT/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 APPLICANT/APPLICANTS IS/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 HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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/APPLICANTS.

¶16

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

¶17

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶18

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

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.7.2021/Abhishek Sri.

Amit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh 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

Avne @ Avnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Ankush Khateek Vs State of U.P.

Sherkhan Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Singh Vs State of U.P.