Allowed

Sahdev v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022BAIL/22514/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this second bail application of the applicant, Sahdev, involved in a criminal case for attempted murder and affray. Relying on prior bail grants to co-accused and the absence of witness examination, the court granted bail with strict conditions regarding court appearance and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions to ensure attendance and prevent evidence tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22514 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sahdev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Singh,Chandra Prakash Singh,Jitendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a coordinate Bench by this court on 09.01.2020. The aforesaid Bench is not sitting in the bail jurisdiction right now and more than two years period have passed and therefore as per the order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 27.04.2022, this second bail application of applicant is listed before this court.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the fresh ground for filing this bail application is that two co-accused persons, namely, Vipin Kumar and Anirudh, have been enlarged on bail subsequently by this court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 38884 of 2019 and 48718 of 2019 respectively. No witness has been examined before the trial court as yet. The applicant is in jail since 15.06.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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 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 recent judgment 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 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, Sahdev, involved in Case Crime No. 105 of 2019, under Sections- 307, 147, 148, 149, 34, 323, 324, 325,

¶12

452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Sherkot, District- Bijnor, 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.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.20 14:04:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahdev v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdev 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

Nirdesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bhallar @ Rajendra Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Tomar Vs State of U.P.

Ankur @ Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.