Allowed

Sandeep@ Golu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 May 2022BAIL/20494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bond paper grant bail to applicant charged with murder. Court held applicant made out a case for bail, directing release on bond and two sureties with strict conditions to secure presence in court and prevent abuse of liberty. Judge Jaiswal digitally signed the order.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to strict conditions of presence and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20494 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep@ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Mayank Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Sandeep @ Golu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 265 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B of I.P.C., Police StationDhaulana, District- Hapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the whole case is based on suspicion. It is further contended that the body of the deceased was taken away by the Police and, only thereafter, family members of the deceased were informed. It, therefore, cannot be said that the first informant was an eye witness else he would have taken the body. Still further it has been stated that it was very difficult for the first informant to recognize the assailants as there was an allegation that they had covered their faces. Learned counsel for the applicant has also alleged on the basis of a Discharge Slip and various medical receipts of the applicant (annexed at page nos. 69 to 75) of the bail application that the applicant was infact hospitalized at the time of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant also alleges dishonesty on the part of the first informant as initially he had stated in the First Information Report that the first informant had not seen the applicant but had subsequently changed his statement by saying that he had

¶8

infact seen the applicant. It is further submitted that the chargesheet has been submitted in the case and no further investigation is required by the police. It is further contended that the co-accused Ashish @ Leelu had already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9189 of 2022 by an order dated 6.5.2022. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicant under the Arms Act and under the Gangster Act as of date was subsequent to the incident and there is in infact no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 12.08.2021 and if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute to granting of bail to co-accused. He also did not deny that the charge sheet had been submitted.

¶10

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Sandeep @ Golu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station- Dhaulana, District- Hapur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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 the court.

¶13

In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as an abuse of liberty of bail and

¶14

pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed on such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case (ii) framing of charges and (iii) recording of statement under Section 323 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 an abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 vkj

¶19

Digitally signed by VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.25 18:42:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep@ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep@ Golu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Singh @ Jhandu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kinni Devi Vs State of U.P.