Allowed

Sanjay Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2022BAIL/38676/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a criminal matter involving offences under IPC and POCSO. The applicant claimed false implication and prior violation of interim period. The court granted bail with conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct, citing the larger mandate of Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail on execution of personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38676 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambarish Tripathi,Ravi Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant through vedio conferencing.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that earlier FIR was lodged against the applicant and three other family members of the victim. It is further submitted that statements of victim were recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., which was against the applicant and other three coaccused, who are family members of victim, but later on in the second statement of victim as well as mother of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they have not given their statements against the co-accused as they are family members and only confined their statements against the applicant. He further submitted that there is absolute contradiction in the second statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that there is financial dispute between the parties resulting into false implication of petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the paragraph 35 of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vineet Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2017 (2) ACC, 701 . Lastly, he submitted that this Court while rejecting the first bail application of applicant directed the trial Court to complete the trial within six months, but till date only statement of P.W.1 has been recorded. Applicant is having no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 27.11.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

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

¶9

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and

¶10

another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant- Sanjay Dubey , involved in Case Crime No. 1082 of 2020, under Sections- 354(ka), 354(kha), 342 & 120-B IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station- Soraon, DistrictPrayagraj, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶11

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court/Authority/Jail Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶12

This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

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 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.

¶18

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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of

¶19

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

¶20

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 17.1.2022 Junaid

Sanjay Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Lal Chandra @ Lal Mani Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Dinesh Chandra Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Rajbahadur Bhartiya Vs Sub Divisional Officer and 2 Others

Sohan Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdish Singh Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil - Dhanghata District - Sant Kabir Nagar and 3 Others

Ashutosh Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and 9 Others