Allowed

Tikka Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2022BAIL/43408/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted bail to Tikka Singh in a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 386 IPC. The court found it to be a fit case for bail, noting the applicant was in jail when the alleged extortion call was made and lacked evidence linking him to the offense.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount, subject to specific conditions of appearance and non-adjourning.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43408 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tikka Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.261 of 2021, under Section 386 of IPC, Police Station- Baansgaon, District -Gorakhpur.

¶7

As per the contents of First Information Report, it is alleged that on 15.08.2021 at about 12:04 p.m. informant received a telephonic call from mobile No.8005143708 demanding 20,00,000/- as extortion money.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is further submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is next submitted that the applicant has not made any call and neither any mobile phone nor any sim card has been recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that the forensic report does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2021 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶10

From the perusal of the record, it appears that call for extortion of money is alleged to have been made when the applicant was in jail and also the mobile with which the alleged crime is said to have been made is not owned by the applicant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶12

Let applicant- Tikka Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid Case on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of 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 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

(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.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse 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 fail 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

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.11.2022 SK Goswami

¶19

Digitally signed by SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI Date: 2022.11.02 17:08:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tikka Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikka 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

Asgar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Angad Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Shivveer Singh Sengar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Nagendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.