Allowed

Lakshmi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022BAIL/13947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Lakshmi, an applicant charged under Section 272 IPC and Section 60 Excise Act, relying on Article 21 and recent Apex Court precedents. The court did not express an opinion on merits of the case but found sufficient case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and evidence tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13947 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lakshmi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shrivastava,Prakhar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Lakshmi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2022, under Section 272 IPC and 60 Excise Act Police Station Nakhasa, District- Sambhal, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Submission is that Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has been enacted by the legislature and hence the implication of the applicant under section 272, I.P.C. is unjustified. Offence under section 60 of Excise Act is bailable and triable by Magistrate. False recovery has been alleged. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.2.2022, who is not a previous convict.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, 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 judgement dated 11.7.2022 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 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

¶11

verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 or to any police ofÏcer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 10.8.2022

¶20

Atul kr. sri.

¶21

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.10 18:09:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lakshmi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi 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

Raja @ Raj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Monu Singh @ Shakti Singh @ Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kashi Mahto Vs State of U.P.

Rahamtullah Alias Daddu Vs State of U.P.

Nawab @ Babloo Vs State of U.P.