Allowed

Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2021BAIL/7972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court allowed bail to applicant Pratap Singh in a criminal case involving assault and attempt to murder. The court considered jail overcrowding due to COVID-19 and granted release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7972 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing mode.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.0765 of 2020 at Police Station-Vrindaban District-Mathura on 14.12.2020 under Sections 323, 332, 353, 307, 336, 427, 504, 506, 395, 397 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Mathura on 04.01.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 14.12.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that all members of the applicant's family have been falsely implicated by the police in the instant case. The instant case is a fall out of a heated argument with police personnel. The said police personnel were trying to illegally intrude into the privacy of the home of the applicant without any lawful authority. On being questioned the police officials became aggressive and attacked the applicant and his family members. No police personnel has sustained any grievous injury on any vital part of the body. All the injuries are simple in nature. Same role has been attributed

¶10

to all the persons who are named in the FIR. Co-accused Banne Singh and Pyare Lal have already been granted bail by this Court on 04.02.2021 and 23.03.2021 by judgment rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4636 of 2021 and 5457 of 2021. The applicant claims parity with the aforesaid coaccused. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained. Lastly it is contended by Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jail during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020 , Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Pratap Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No.765 of 2020 at Police Station-Vrindawan DistrictMathura under Sections 323, 332, 353, 307, 336, 427, 412, 504, 506, 395, 397 IPC and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the

¶16

like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either through his counsel or personally as and when directed by the learned trial court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, the trial in order to secure his presence may issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In case the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(vi) 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.6.2021/Nadeem Ahmad

Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahman and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nawab Ali Vs State of U.P.

Kripal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Vs State of U.P.

Mubarik @ Kaka Vs State of U.P.