Allowed

Sunil Nishad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2022BAIL/3790/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant Sunil Nishad charged with offences including murder and illegal mining. The court observed the prima facie case and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings within six months, subject to specific conditions of presence and no adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attendance and non-interference with trial.

Sunil Nishad Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3790 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar(Senior Adv.),Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State.

¶6

As per F.I.R., which has been lodged by one Tarunendra Tripathi (Sub Inspector), he along with other police personnel had received an information that some illegal mining of sand was being done and the same could be stopped. In pursuance of that they went to the place of occurrence. The accused applicant along with some unknown persons started assaulting police party in which one police constable namely Ravi Kumar Pandey is said to have been crushed by the tractor. Three injuries were sustained by the deceased.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that the first information report of the alleged incident is delayed for which no plausible explanation has been given, which itself falsify the prosecution story. It is further submitted that on the one hand present FIR has been lodged against the applicant and on the other hand claim petition has been filed claiming the incident to be an accident, which shows that the prosecution story as launched by prosecution is concocted and false. It is next contended that the co-accused namely Anil Kumar (Anil Nishad) has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.12.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40955 of 2020, a copy of said order is annexed as annexure-15 at page 110 of the affidavit accompanying this bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been

¶8

placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.4.2020. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Sunil Nishad involved in Case Crime No.277 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 4/21 of Mins & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶12

(i) 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.

¶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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and

¶15

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

(iv) 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, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.7.2022 Dev/-

¶21

Digitally signed by DEV PRAKASH Date: 2022.07.28 16:39:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Nishad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Nishad 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

Kamley@ Uma Shankar@ Lala Vs State of U.P.

Premwati Vs State of U.P.

Sintoo Gound Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Murari Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs State of U.P.