This bail application was allowed. The Single Judge granted relief to Udayveer Singh, noting co-accused were already on bail and citing fear of witness tampering. Release was conditional on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.
Allowed the applicant's bail application; released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8907 of 2021
Applicant :- Udayveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Chhote@Chootelal Chhutalla@Ratnesh and Girish Kumar Sharma@Girish Chandra have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court; the applicant is not named in the FIR; applicant came to be arrested on the statement of coaccused Chhote@Chootelal Chhutalla@Ratnesh. It is urged that alleged recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- has been shown from the possession of the applicant; applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained; applicant is languishing in jail since 2.8.2018, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Udayveer Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 202 of 2018, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) 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.
In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.
The order reads thus:
"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to
lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."
Order Date :- 25.6.2021 Kuldeep
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a non-bailable offence involving Sections 392, 411 IPC.
Udayveer Singh
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
