Allowed

Anil Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022/8952/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court held that despite the charge sheet, the lack of cogent evidence and the fit of the case warranted bail. The applicant was released on a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding witness tampering, attendance in court, and procedural obligations.

What did the court decide?

Relief: Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, ensuring court attendance, and facing proceedings under Section 174-A IPC if pro

Anil Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8952 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari,Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 266 of 2020, under Sections 354B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(W)(2) of SC/ST Act and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kadipur, District Sultanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He next added that the applicant was not involved in committing the aforesaid offence and due to village enmity, he has been implicated in the instant matter. He added that there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter. He next added that identical situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the court below. Further Charge sheet has been filed in the matter and there is no possibility of fleeing away from trail proceedings and tempering with the evidence. He added that there is no independent public eye witness of the aforesaid offence and there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant, which has been mentioned in para 14 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 31.05.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there are allegations against the applicant and he has been named in the first information report and

¶9

after investigation the substantial evidence is found against him and as such he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of fleeing away from trail proceedings and tempering with the evidence; further there is no cogent piece of evidence and no cogent piece of evidence to connect him in the instant matter; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 31.05.2022.

¶11

Thus, 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 without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Anil Nishad involved in the 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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶21

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.19 10:41:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Raj Kishor @ Tobhu Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Bhagauti Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Shanu Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Raj Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.