Allowed

Surjeet Singh @ Sameer Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022BAIL/20953/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application seeks release for an applicant accused of murder. The High Court, noting insufficient investigation and lack of eye witnesses, granted bail by relying on a Supreme Court precedent while imposing standard bail undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific undertakings regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Surjeet Singh @ Sameer Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20953 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Surjeet Singh @ Sameer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,Alok Krishan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

This is the Second Bail Application of the applicant for grant of bail. The First Bail Application of the Applicant has rejected by Hon. B.Amit Sthalekar, J, (since retired), vide order dated 14.10.2019, (copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application).

¶6

Heard Sri Sagir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Krishan Tripathi, appearing on behalf of the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I, appearing on behalf of the State, and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to suspicion. There is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the present case without any plausible explanation making general allegation against the applicant. There is no independent reliable eye witness of the alleged incident. The Investigating Officer only on the basis of surmises and conjectures without making proper investigation falsely roped the applicant in the present case. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is totally missing in the said case. The applicant has no motive to commit the alleged offence. It is a case of blind murder and no one has seen the real assailant. The alleged recovery has been made from the open place accessible by all and sundry, whereas applicant has vehemently denied so-called discovery of of incriminating article from his pointing out. The person from whom Mobile of deceased was recovered has not been made accused. The person who disposed off the body without informing the police has not been made accused. The Bolero vehicle which belong to deceased was found parked outside the house of Gabbar Singh @ Brijesh Singh has been admitted to bail by this Court. It is next contended that co-accused persons namely Gabbar Singh @ Brijesh Singh, Rohit Singh @ Rahul Giri have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court (copies of order has been annexed collectively and marked as Annexure-10 to the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application). It is further contended that trial has proceeded but not a single witness has been examined as yet and applicant is languishing in jail since 24.05.2018, only on suspicion having no previous criminal history. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant

¶9

without disputing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in case applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment , and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Surjeet Singh @ Sameer Singh, be released on bail arising out of Case Crime No. 671 of 2018, under Sections - 364, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to 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 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.

¶13

(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 Penal Code.

¶14

(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 in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(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 charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 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 abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison..

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.7.2022 ssm

¶19

Digitally signed by SYED SALMAN MANSOOR Date: 2022.07.20 16:27:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surjeet Singh @ Sameer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet Singh @ Sameer Singh 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

Mubin Vs State of U.P.

Varun Vs State of U.P.

Nausad Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Lala @ Gorav Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others