Allowed

Sanjeev Shakya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2022BAIL/13338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail application filed by Sanjeev Shakya accused in an Excise Act case. The court noted insufficient prosecution evidence and lack of witness instructions. Bail granted under personal bond with two sureties and standard trialing conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

Sanjeev Shakya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13338 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Shakya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2022 at Police Station Mohammadabad District Farrukhabad under Section 60, 62 of Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 259, 260 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (Excise Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, on 07.03.2022.

¶7

Shri Gyanendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Illicit liquor was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. The applicant has no concern with the manufacture, storage or sale of any illicit or spurious liquor. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No forensic science laboratory report which confirms that the substance recovered is spurious and noxious to public health has been produced by the prosecution.

¶8

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶9

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA has not received any instructions regarding the criminal history of the applicant.

¶10

Liberty of citizen is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by apathy of the police officials. The Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, shall take appropriate action against the erring police officials for failing to send appropriate instructions to the Government Advocate in this case.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant- Sanjeev Shakya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a

¶14

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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.4.2022

¶21

Dhananjai

¶22

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.04.05 11:42:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Shakya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Shakya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijpal @ Bp Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Alam @ Sharbad Vs State of U.P.

Avrar Vs State of U.P.

Jahid Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Hasmeer Khan @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.