Allowed

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2022BAIL/13938/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Siddharth, J. discharged an applicant in a murder case on bail, relying on Article 21, without expressing an opinion on merits, imposing conditions to ensure appearance and non-tampering while directing the lower court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions; directive to conclude trial within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13938 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Jitendra Kumar Shishodia,Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Shahrukh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.451 of 2018, under Sections 307, 302 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District- Hapur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of causing the offence of murder against two named accused persons including the applicant in the FIR.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the statement of the injured, Irshad, he has assigned the role of causing injuries by Suja to the deceased against the applicant, but in the post mortem report, there is no injury caused by the Suja found on the body of the deceased. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 24.8.2018. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶11

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

¶12

(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

¶13

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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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

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

¶20

Order Date :- 12.9.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶21

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.09.13 16:26:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh 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

Parvindar Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raukesh@ Rauke Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra @ Sonu Vs State of Up