Allowed

Vishram Singh @ Ranvir Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2022BAIL/1315/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Chief Justice (implied by J.) granted bail to Vishram Singh facing murder charges after six years of incarceration. The court emphasized long detention, lack of early trial closure due to hostile witnesses, and adherence to Article 21 without expressing an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the bail application and directed trial court to conclude trial within six months.

Vishram Singh @ Ranvir Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1315 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vishram Singh @ Ranvir Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Singh Parmar, Tarun Kumar Tripathi 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

There is allegation of causing murder of one, Ashish Gupta, against the applicant in the FIR.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant clearly admits that clear role has been assigned to the applicant. Hence, bail application has been pressed only on the ground of long incarceration of the applicant in jail. He has submitted that P.W.- 1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were examined at the time of filing of this bail application. P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 had turned hostile. There is no possibility of early conclusion of trial. Subsequently, all the witnesses of fact have been examined and only formal witness remain to be examined. However, keeping in view the long incarceration of about 6 years of the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. He is in jail since 08.10.2016 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

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

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused long incarceration in jail, 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Vishram Singh @ Ranvir Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 210 of 2016, under Sections- 302, 307, 504,

¶11

506 IPC, Police Station- Kurara, District- Hamirpur, 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 23.8.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.24 14:48:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishram Singh @ Ranvir Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishram Singh @ Ranvir Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak @ Deep Prakash @ Deepu Vs State of U.P., through Secretary Home Govt. of U.P.

Sahul Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.