Allowed

Daksh @ Darshan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2022BAIL/4137/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a kidnapping case where the applicant was alleged to have been falsely implicated via phone usage by a co-accused. The court granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding witness protection and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on a personal bond with two sureties furnished to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4137 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Daksh @ Darshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Dhuriya,Vijay Kumar,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar and Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsels for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation in the FIR that the daughter of the informant has been kidnapped by applicant and she is missing. Subsequently, in the investigation it was found by the police that the kidnapper of the daughter of the informant was Tulsi. The victim is stated to have made call to her brother and informed that she has committed mistake and is going to commit suicide after jumping in the canal.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case since his mobile phone was alleged to have been used in the offence by the co-accused person. The applicant has no role in the alleged incident. The applicant is in jail since 31.08.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

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

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Daksh @ Darshan, involved in Case Crime No. 464 of 2021, under Sections- 363, 366, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Partapur, District- Meerut, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶11

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

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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. 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

(v) 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, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2022 Rohit

¶20

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.07.25 16:16:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Daksh @ Darshan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daksh @ Darshan 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

Vada Sonkar @ Nanbabu Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jittu Vs State of U.P.

Anish @ Bholu Vs State of U.P.

Jeut Rai Vs State of Up.

Amir Ahmed Vs State of U.P.