Allowed

Suraj Patel @ Lodi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022BAIL/15186/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Suraj Patel in a murder case under Sections 302 IPC, citing jail overcrowding and constitutional obligations under Article 21 while referencing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including attendance in court, no interference with witnesses, and filing undertaking against adjournments.

Suraj Patel @ Lodi Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

RESERVED ON 19.10.2022 DELIVERED ON 1.11.2022

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15186 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj Patel @ Lodi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devashish Mitra

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Devashish Mitra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Suraj Patel @ Lodi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 474 of 2018, under Sections 147,148,149,34,302 IPC Police Station Nawabganj, District- Allahabad, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation in the First Information Report that applicant alongwith his nephew, Gyan Singh, was going to attend call of nature when the applicant and five named co-accused belonging to the village of his brother, Vinod Kumar came armed with knife,axe and firearms and attacked them on account of old enmity with his brother ,Vinod Kumar. When they were attacked they ran towards the village. The brother of the informant died in the incident.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that role of exhortation was assigned to Chhedi Lal in the First Information Report whereas the applicant and coaccused, Vijay Singh alias Manju,Pappu alias Lal Babu and Ajay Singh alias Bhola were assigned general role of assault with knife and axe. No specific role was assigned

¶9

to the applicant as to what weapon was held by him out of the three weapons alleged. The statements of the eye witnesses have been recorded after more than one month of the incident and they have also not assigned any specific role to the applicant.The applicant has criminal history of one case crime no.434 of 2015 wherein he has been enlarged on bail.The applicant is in jail since 29.9.2018 . Co-accuseds, Chhedi lal and Ravi Shankar Patel have already been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 16.7.2019 and 27.2.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21218 and 8527 of 2019.He has further submitted that co-accused, Vijay Singh alias Manju and Pappu alias Lal Babu have been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 13.12.2019 and 18.6.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 53738 of 2019 and 10426 of 2020 . He has finally submitted that before the trial court S.T. No.14 of 2019 is pending regarding present implication and there are 19 prosecution witnesses to be examined and statements of only three prosecution witnesses have been recorded till date.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 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

¶12

2 of 4

¶13

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 considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶14

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 verified.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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 officer;

¶19

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

¶20

3 of 4

¶21

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.

¶22

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 sufficient 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.

¶23

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

¶24

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶25

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶26

4 of 4

¶27

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.02 11:37:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Patel @ Lodi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Patel @ Lodi 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

Birendra Bahadur Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt Sabnam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Rajeev Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Prem Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P.