Allowed

Sani @ Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2022BAIL/40205/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application underSections 376-D and 506 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant based on parity with a co-accused who was previously granted bail, subject to specific conditions regarding trial conduct and attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions ensuring personal attendance and no abuse of bail liberty.

Sani @ Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40205 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sani @ Sandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajnish Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47886 of 2018.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.292 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 506 IPC, Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He has further submitted that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Prashant @ Shekhar Dixit has already been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court by orders dated 03.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34051 of 2020, copy of the bail orders has been annexed as Annexure No.10 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. He has further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1107.2018 having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., this Court is of the view

¶11

that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sani @ Sandeep 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 :

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 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 :- 30.11.2022

¶21

Ajeet

¶22

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.11.30 16:06:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sani @ Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sani @ Sandeep 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

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sheetla Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Khatik Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satendra Rajpoot Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.