Allowed

Subhash Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022/5807/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Subhash Awasthi in a case involving charges under the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the nature of alleged offenses and the applicant's criminal record, applying established legal principles before granting release on bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in an amount satisfactory to the court.

Subhash Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5807 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Singh,Akhand Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Nagendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Triveni Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Subhash Awasthi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 307, 386 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police StationAsoha, District- Unnao, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

As per the allegation of F.I.R. dated 21.03.2015 which has been lodged against the applicant and three other named accused stating therein that at about 08:30 PM, the applicant and other co-accused persons entered into the house of the first informant having danda in their hands and they abused the first informant and committed mar-pit by kicks and fists and co-accused Subhash, fired upon the first informant but fire was missed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that this is a no fire arm injury case. The other injury sustained are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Virendra Kumar @ Guddu having role of committing mar-pit is granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in 10636 of 2015 on 16.12.2015 and other co-accused Surendra Awasthi and Lalit Awasthi are granted bail by Sessions Judge, Unnao on 11.01.2018.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of 9 cases, one case is related to Section 307 of the IPC, second is related to Section 308 of the IPC, two are related to U.P. Goondas Act and other are related to minor offences and the criminal history of 9 cases have been explained in a table form

¶12

which are related to the same Police Station. It is submitted that the applicant is acquitted in three cases. In one case he has been released on prohibition. In one case final report has been submitted on the basis of compromise and cases of Goondas Act have been decided. In the present two cases related to the year 2013 and 2015 are pending for trial.

¶13

It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 12.05.2022 undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶16

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , 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. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Subhash Awasthi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶19

inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶26

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶27

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are 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.

¶28

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

¶29

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶30

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.

¶31

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Anurag, APS

¶32

Digitally signed by ANURAG SINGH Date: 2022.09.05 12:40:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Subhash Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jaswant Singh @ Bagga Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajjan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Lucknow

Mohd, Mohseen Vs Union of India Thru, D.R.I Lucknow

Avadhesh Verma Vs State of U.P.