Allowed

Amit Shukla @ Shaka v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2022BAIL/1132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of the applicant, found falsely implicated in a Section 304 IPC case due to contradictions in the postmortem report, and released him on personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Amit Shukla @ Shaka released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; specific conditions imposed against tampering and influencing witnesses.

Amit Shukla @ Shaka Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1132 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Shukla @ Shaka Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conferencing mode.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 391 of 2021 at Police Station Kotwali Mainpuri District Mainpuri under Sections 304 I.P.C.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 30.11.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 14.07.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the F.I.R. version, the victim was assaulted multiple times by the applicant and one unknown co-accused. However, the postmortem report records only one injury. The postmortem report contradicts the F.I.R. version. Further the informant who claims to be an eye witness

¶10

to the incident did not suffer any injury. It is unbelievable that the informant stood as a silent spectator while his son was being mercilessly attacked. During the course of the investigation another eye witness has been introduced for the first time 30 days after the incident. The said eye witness is the second son of the informant. The presence of the second son of the informant was not referenced in the F.I.R. The introduction of the said eye witness is an afterthought and only intended to save the failing prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused

¶13

persons.

¶14

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Amit Shukla @ Shaka be released on bail in Case Crime No. 391 of 2021 at Police Station Kotwali Mainpuri District Mainpuri under Sections 304 I.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation

¶22

application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.2.2022 Dhananjai

Amit Shukla @ Shaka v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Shukla @ Shaka v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Deeksha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diwakar Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

Jhagadu and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Gurdeep Vs State of U.P.