Allowed

Subhash @ Narendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022BAIL/10874/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of High Court granted bail to an accused charged with murder and affray, noting that specific roles were assigned post-mortem and ante-mortem witnesses were not named in the FIR, distinguishing recent Supreme Court precedents regarding bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including presence at specified procedural stages and prohibition on evidence tampering.

Subhash @ Narendra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10874 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash @ Narendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Nanhe Lal Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,J.B. Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation against seven named accused in the FIR that they have made indiscriminate firing on the deceased as a result which he died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after postmortem report of the deceased was conducted, only two fire arm injuries were found on the person of deceased and thereafter the informant has assigned specific role to the applicant and co-accused, Naresh @ Sunny. He has submitted that some other eye-witness account has also been collected to assign specific role to the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 13.06.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit. No prosecution witness has been examined till date before the trial court.

¶10

Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that specific role was assigned to the applicant and co-accused, Naresh @ Sunny. The bail application of the co-accused, Naresh @ Sunny, has already been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court on 14.01.2020.

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that in the FIR the informant has not assigned any specific role to any of the accused. However, he himself has assigned specific role to two accused including the applicant after the post-mortem of the deceased. The independent witnesses who have assigned specific role to the applicant were not named in the FIR. The

¶12

bail application of the co-accused were rejected in the year 2020 and till date the trial has not been concluded.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant, Subhash @ Narendra, involved in Case Crime No. 537 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station- Dadri, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Rohit

¶25

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.07 17:59:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash @ Narendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash @ Narendra 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

Hari Shanker and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mahfooj Alam Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Vs State of U.P.

Aftab @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.