Single judge bail order refusing to examine merits but granting enlargement based on Supreme Court precedent and Article 21 without clear statutory basis linkage.
Bail granted by executing personal bond and two sureties with multiple conditions including no intimidation of witnesses and attendance at trial dates.
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. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9819 of 2021
Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of applicant and submits that due to death of earlier counsel, he has filed his parcha on behalf of applicant.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Complainant is wife of co-accused Shubham Lohi and another co-accused Shashank Lohit is elder brother of Shubham Lohit. Applicant has been falsely implicated due to being friend of co-accused Shubham Lohit. Main allegations are against co-accused Shubham Lohit and Shashank Lohit, who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.1.2021 and 19.2.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3424 of 2021 and 10071 of 2021 respectively. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 17.10.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant- Prashant Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 635 of 2020, under Sections- 364, 307, 394, 427, 328, 120-B I.P.C., Police StationBahedi, District Bareilly, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The concerned Court/Authority/Jail 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.
This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021 Arvind
1 issue framed by the court
Whether grant of bail to be enlarged despite basis of false implication in案情.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Prashant Kumar
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Neeraj Tiwari
Parties & counsel
