Allowed

Jay Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2021BAIL/41956/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant during the trial under Section 439 Cr.P.C., imposing conditions regarding court attendance and adherence to the trial schedule without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41956 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak,Om Prakash Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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. 97 of 2021, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 IPC,and Section 60 of Excise Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Fatehpur.

¶7

As per the prosecution case, on the information received by the Mukhbir, the police personnel raided upon the shop of the applicant and recovered 225 pouch of country made liquor, 10 liters illegal liquor in 5 bottles, 165 duplicate QR Codes, 175 caps, 224 empty bottles, 1 kg urea and 250 gm of amalgam. The alleged recovery is forged and planted for which there is no independent/public witness. The applicant is the owner of a General Merchant shop and he is falsely implicated in this present case due to enmity. Applicant is of no criminal antecedents as stated in paragraph no. 14 to the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.8.2021. There is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence. Hence, bail, during trial, has been prayed for.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Jay Singh, 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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.12.2021 S.K.

Jay Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sikandar Gihar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh Singh @ Lala Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Pal @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Lodhi Vs State of U.P.