Allowed

Manish Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021BAIL/34729/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving multiple serious offences including unnatural death and affray. Bail was granted initially without sureties to be furnished later, subject to strict undertakings to attend hearings and avoid delays.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by personal bond only, with undertaking to furnish sureties within a month after courts resume normal functioning.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34729 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Das Srivastava,Prabhat Kumar Tiwari,Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal Das Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.96 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 304, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Badlapur, District-Jaunpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was got registered by the complainant against seven named accused persons and out of seven accused persons, Alok Upadhyay and Kailash Upadhyay were enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on different occasions, copy of which has been produced for perusal. It is next contended that case of the applicant stands on identical footing qua abovesaid accused persons. In this continuation, parity has also been claimed. The next contention is that no recovery has been shown from the applicant and there is no criminal antecedent to the credit of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.06.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Manish Upadhyay , who is involved in case crime no.96 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 304, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Badlapur, District-Jaunpur, be

¶11

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 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

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 to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention

¶20

that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Sumit S

Manish Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Upadhyay 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

Gomal Alias Nagendra Vs State of U.P.

Dheerendra @ Dheeru Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ramanand Singh Vs State of Up

Dhaniram Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Mishra Vs State of U.P.