The Court allowed a bail application filed by accused persons. They were released on personal bond and local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct during the trial proceedings.
Relief granted by releasing the applicants on bail with a personal bond and two local sureties subject to strict conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 58
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41762 of 2022 Applicant :- Shyam Swaroop Alias Sonu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Bhan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard Mr. Surya Bhan Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicantsShyam Swaroop @ Sonu and Abhishek Raj @ Nannu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 241 of 2022, under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
As per the prosecution case, as narrated in the first information report, on on 7th July, 2022, when the informant was sitting in his house along with brother Anuj Yadav, all the accused persons including the applicants entered into his house and when the informant demanded his money of milk which have been sold by him to the accused persons, they abused the informant and his brother and also threw brick and stone on them due to which the brother of the informant sustained injuries. Further when the informant tried to save his brother they also beat the informant and after that they ran away.
The learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is no doubt true that on 7th July, 1011 due to petty dispute, there was a fight between the informant's side and the applicants' side for which the informant has lodged present first information report and the applicants have also tried to lodge a first information report against the persons informant's side but when the Police did not lodge their report, they filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the court below, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. As such the present case is a cross case. At this stage, it is not possible to ascertain as to which party was the aggressor. It is further argued that though the injured sustained injuries but neither in the first information report nor in the statements of the injured and the informant, specific role as to who has caused the injuries to the injured has not been assigned to any of the accused persons. Only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 1st June, 2022.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused-applicants, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants 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.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their , without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
Order Date :- 18.10.2022 Sushil/-
Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.10.19 16:21:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present criminal trial.
Whether conditions should be imposed to prevent abuse of bail liberty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 8 enactments
Shyam Swaroop Alias Sonu and Another
Shiv Shanker Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
