Allowed

Aneeta and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022BAIL/17260/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail in a criminal bail application filed by Aneeta and Nagendra. The High Court restrained the applicants from tampering with evidence, failing to appear in court, or securing adjournments without cause, imposing strict conditions including personal bonds and surety.

What did the court decide?

The applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each subject to specified conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17260 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Aneeta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the informant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Aneeta and Nagendra, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 148, 506, 308, 325, 147 I.P.C., Police Station- Kaptanganj, DistrictAzamgarh, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants were not named in the first information report. They have been falsely implicated in this case during investigation. The role of causing injury has been assigned to the named accused persons. They are well-known to other side. The applicants are languishing in jail since 04.04.2022. They have no criminal history to their credits. In case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, they does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail, they 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, dictum of Apex Court in the case of 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 applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this

¶13

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 applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them 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

Order Date :- 4.8.2022 KS

¶20

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.08.06 18:26:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aneeta and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneeta and Another 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

Mohammad Asif Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Raidas @ Govind Vs State of U.P.

Fulendra @ Raj Chouhan Vs State of U.P.

Chunnu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Amit Gangwar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P.