Allowed

Shubham Raj v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022/772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application considering the applicant's severe medical condition (multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis) and lack of criminal history. The court allowed bail by referring to the Apex Court judgment in Dataram Singh and Article 21 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Shubham Raj Vs State of U.P. through… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 772 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shubham Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Tripathi,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Arun Sinha,Siddhartha Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0296 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station- Jankipuram, District- Lucknow (Lucknow North Commissionerate, Lucknow), during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted the daughter of the first informant with a razor blade on 07.10.2021 at about 07:45 AM.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the informant, who is a police constable, is the mother of the injured person and the injury report does not match with the allegations levelled in the FIR. Initially the FIR was lodged u/s 324 IPC but later on, the same has been replaced with Section 307 IPC at the behest and the influence of the first informant being a police constable. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is terminally ill and is suffering from RIGHT SIDED PYOPNEUMOTHRAX CAUSE MULTIDRUG RESISTENT PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS (FQ RESISTENT) WITH ICD IN SITU. The said disease is dangerous to his life. Learned counsel has also stated that as per the report received from the District Jail, Lucknow, the applicant needs a regular treatment by a specialist. There is no recovery from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2021 and he has no criminal history. Seeing his medical conditions, he is entitled for bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶9

Per contra, Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute

¶10

the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and also the fact of his medical condition.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Shubham Raj, who is involved in the aforementioned case crime number 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶14

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the

¶19

applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.7.2022 Siddhant

¶21

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.07.05 10:42:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shubham Raj v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Raj v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow

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

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Prakash Tripathi @ Satyam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Musheer Ahmad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Mashrur Gaddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saiyed Mohd. Faheem @ Mohd. Noor Islam Saiyed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.