Allowed

Jainendra Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2022/8890/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant for an offence under Section 326 I.P.C., noting he was already on bail for the same crime and the law was added later. The court held it to be a fit case for bail based on the reformative theory of punishment and Article 21, without expressing a view on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to ensure presence and prevent witness tampering.

Jainendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8890 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jainendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Animesh Upadhyay,Prabhat Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Session Trial No.334 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 537 of 2014, under Section 326 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an F.I.R. was lodged in Case Crime No.537 of 2014 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C. He submits that present applicant is in jail since 9.7.2014 and all the material witnesses have already been examined. He added that in fact present applicant has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Bail No.1206 of 2020 but, due to inadvertence, Section 326 I.P.C. was left to be mentioned in the bail application. He submits that Section 326 I.P.C. was added later in the year 2017 as one of the leg of the injured person was amputated. He further added that since the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 537 of 2014, as such, he is entitled to be released in the said added Section 326 I.P.C. too.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Jainendra Sharma involved in the

¶12

aforementioned 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:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.10.2022 Ram Murti

¶20

Digitally signed by RAM MURTI YADAV Date: 2022.10.11 19:49:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jainendra Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainendra Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna @ Imran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shree Prakash Diwedi @ Prakash Diwedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Ghildyal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Seyc. Home Lko.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramu Harijan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.