Allowed

Arman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2022BAIL/30078/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Sections 399 and 402 IPC raised by Arman, who surrendered after absconding. The court fixed conditions including personal bond and sureties, emphasizing strict adherence to appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and conduct during the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30078 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Wahid Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submitted that earlier applicant-accused has been granted bail by the trial court in the present case, but he remained absent on the date fixed before the court below. Process were sent against the applicant, lastly he surrender on 21.12.2021 and since then he is in jail. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

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

¶8

From the perusal of record, it reveals that due to absence on the date fixed before the court below, the trial court has issued process and lastly he surrendered before the court below. Trial of the case was delayed due to absconding of the accused, however keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that since the last about 10 months the accused is in jail and criminal history asked has been sufficiently explained in the supplementary affidavit, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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.

¶9

Let the applicant Arman involved in Sessions Trial No. 901 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 224 of 2015, under section 399, 402 I.P.C., Police Station Syana, District Bulandshahr be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

¶10

concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Submission and observation recorded in the matter are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application. Trial court shall not be influenced in any way with the said observation / submission while deciding the trial.

¶18

It is however, made clear that if at any stage of trial the accused misused the liberty of bail, the trial court is at liberty to proceed with the provisions of cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.10.2022

¶20

Bhanu

¶21

Digitally signed by BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.10.19 12:59:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arman 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

Piyush Sisodiya Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Karan Vs State of U.P.