Allowed

Satyendra Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022BAIL/2305/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding injury causing IPC 302/34, the court granted bail to the applicant based on jail overcrowding and precedent, specifying strict conditions regarding court appearances, non-tampering, and proclamation powers for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions ensuring court presence, no tampering with evidence, and adherence to trial procedures.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2305 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satyendra Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,Rakesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

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

¶7

There are general allegations against five accused persons including the applicant in the FIR of causing injury to the deceased.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the informant had assigned the role of causing injury by sharp edged weapon bhujali to the deceased to co-accused, Ajay Rai which resulted in his death. He has pointed out to the statement of the doctor who has stated that the death of the deceased has been caused by some sharp edged weapon. The applicants have been assigned the role of causing injury by lathi-danda. He is in jail since 11.10.2021 and has criminal history of one case explained in paragraph 21 of the affidavit in support of the bail application.

¶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, considering 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 considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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, Satyendra Rai, involved in Case Crime No. 216 of 2021, under Sections- 302/34 IPC, Police StationBakhira, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, 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

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶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 :- 16.9.2022 Rohit

¶20

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.17 17:34:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyendra Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Rai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Bajrangi Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Sobbal @ Suhawal Agariya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P.