Allowed

Surya Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022BAIL/25817/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application in a murder case (IPC 302), the court found it to be a fit case for bail despite the gravity of the charge. The applicant, a retired official, was granted bail with stringent conditions to ensure his presence during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions of presence and no adjournment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25817 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surya Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Somendra Singh,Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi,Shashi Kant Shukla,Yadvendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Srivastava,Satyendra Narayan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 472 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Kishni, District Mainpuri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is father of the deceased girl and has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant who had solemnized court marriage with the deceased. He further submits that the applicant is an old person aged about 62 years and has retired from the Central Government. He is suffering from age related ailments and he was not present at the place of occurrence on the date of incident. It is further argued that the first informant is lodged the FIR implicating the applicant and his entire family without any cogent evidence. Infact the true fact is that the deceased had fallen down from roof and sustained serious injuries and was rushed hospital but unfortunately she could not be saved. It is further argued that the witnesses family Sri Rampal Singh, Sri Chatra Pal Singh have not supported the prosecution story in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that even driver Sri Sanju S/o Raj Bahadur aged about 36 years, who has taken the deceased in his Omini Van to hospital has not supported the prosecution story. He has stated that in night at about 3:30 p.m. Sunny S/o Ramu and Priyanshu of his family came and said to him that the daughter of their elder father (Tau) family Rubi had sustained injuries on the head after due to fallen from a roof and on their information, she was taken to doctor in his van. It is further argued that no specific allegation of any overt act has been levelled against the applicant and general allegations have been made against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The

¶8

whole prosecution story is unnatural and unbelievable. He further submits that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and they submit that it is wrong to show that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence but they could not show any Iota of evidence to corroborate their argument.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant- Surya Pratap Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 date 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 IPC.

¶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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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

¶16

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.12.2022 Neetu

¶21

Digitally signed by NEETU SINGH Date: 2022.12.07 18:27:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surya Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Pratap 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Vs State of U.P.

Dulum Rajbhar Alias Sonu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Shivkant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Saini @ Kalka Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neelesh Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others