Pradeep Sharma @ Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17370 of 2022

Applicant :- Pradeep Sharma @ Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha,Shiv Kumar 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,Pradeep Sharma @ Sharma, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2021, under Sections 364A IPC Police Station Ekdil, District- Etawah, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of kidnapping for ransom in the First Information Report.

¶8

The submission is that applicant was not named in the First Information Report. He has been named by the co-accused, Govind Rajpoot, in his statement.Police has also named the applicant on its basis.The applicant is in jail since 5.12.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶9

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

¶10

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 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.

¶11

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.

¶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

The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall

¶19

verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 13.7.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶21

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.14 18:13:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Sharma @ Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Sharma @ Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruvnarayan Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sunil @ Sushil Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Sharma @ Raju Rana Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Madhav Bhoi Vs State of U.P.