Allowed

Vinit Shukla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022BAIL/10403/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application, holding that the applicant had made out a case for bail despite the nature of the offences, citing the prolonged detention and lack of trial conclusion. The bail was granted subject to stringent undertaking conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions including verification of identity and undertaking not to tamper with evidence or seek adjournments.

Vinit Shukla Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10403 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vinit Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey,Narendra Nath Tripathi,Vinay Krishna Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court on 10.10.2017 which is not available now.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the second bail application has only been filed on the ground that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2015. Before the trial court. Only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. P.W-4 is being repeatedly summoned by the court below but he is not responding. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The applicant is in jail since 10.04.2015 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 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.

¶11

Let the applicant, Vinit Shukla, involved in Case Crime No. 186 of 2015, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Deoria, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶12

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 not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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. 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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 then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) 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. 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.31 17:25:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinit Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinit Shukla v. State of U.P.

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

Mehboob Vs State of U.P.

Golu Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Veerpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Sagar Vs State of U.P.