Allowed

Ajay Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021BAIL/9683/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Ajay Singh in a bail application under U.P. Criminal Misc. Application No. 9683 of 2021. The applicant was charged under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act. The court considered the established position of law regarding bail as the rule and committal as an exception. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions including furnishing sureties and ensuring attenda

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and behavior.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9683 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjive Kumar Gupta,Ashok Kumar,Bheshaj Puri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Kumar Solanki

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bheshaj Puri, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. Sri Brajesh Kumar Solanki, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Ajay Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 187 of 2020, under Sections 323, 452, 354, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act 2012, Police Station- Ushawa, District- Budaun, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity. As per the allegation leveled in the F.I.R., the incident took place on 12.08.2020 but the complainant had lodged the F.I.R. of the alleged incident on 04.12.2020 on the basis of an application made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further contented that the applicant and informant are door to door neighbors. Uncle of the applicant was lodged an F.I.R. against the informant as Case Crime No. 283 of 2013, under Section 364 of I.P.C. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.01.2021 having no criminal history. If he is released on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will involve in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the

¶10

Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Ajay Singh involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶12

(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.

¶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 them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(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

¶16

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 them in accordance with law.

¶17

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶18

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

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.9.2021 aks

Ajay Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Surya Pratap Kannaujia Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Beni Prasad Kewat Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nath Vs State of U.P.