Allowed

Omendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022BAIL/34117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application concerning crimes under the IPC and Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petition for Omendra Singh. Relying on large-scale protest context, Article 21, and parity with co-accused granted bail on identical grounds, the Court released the applicant on personal bond and sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of like amount, subject to conditions regarding presence in court, non-interference with witnesses, and non-reoffending.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34117 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Omendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Copies of the orders dated 05.09.2022 relating to coaccused, Adarsh Singh alias Nilesh and 10.11.2022 relating to co-accused, Vikas Yadav @ Vijay Yadav, passed by coordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 34417 of 2022 and 34199 of 2022 respectively in which they have been granted bail, has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant in the Court today which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Malhotra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Omendra Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2022 under Sections 146, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 307 I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Alinagar, District Chandauli, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation in the first information report lodged on 18.06.2022 by the informant, S.I. Ganga Dhar Maurya, against five named accused persons and 200 unnamed accused persons stating that the accused persons had damaged the public properties at the railway station and when the police tried to apprehend the miscreants, they exhorted all others to kill the policemen as they were creating obstacles in the agitation and the miscreants attacked the police personnel with iron rods and sticks causing injuries to some police personnel.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither named in the first information report nor he was arrested on the spot. It is also submitted that in the first information report itself it is mentioned that there was a mob consisting of 200 people and therefore, there was no particular mode of identification of applicant as an accused. It is further submitted that identically circumstanced co-accused persons, namely, Adarsh Singh alias Nilesh and Vikas Yadav @ Vijay Yadav have been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide

¶10

orders dated 05.09.2022 and 10.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 34417 of 2022 and 34199 of 2022 respectively. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing and the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.06.2022. The criminal history of two cases of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 4 of the rejoinder afÏdavit in which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. However, he could not deny the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the fact that identically circumstanced co-accused persons, Adarsh Singh alias Nilesh and Vikas Yadav @ Vijay Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail in similar circumstances as that of the applicant, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Omendra Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶19

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before

¶20

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.

¶21

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 16.11.2022 KS

¶24

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.11.16 17:20:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Omendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omendra 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

Mohammad Nafis Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Bala Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohd. Sufiyan Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Khan Vs State of U.P.

Shyamji Verma Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gon Vs State of U.P.