Allowed

Devendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022BAIL/5115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application under Section 439 CrPC for accused charged with Sections 386 & 506 IPC. Court considers lack of criminal record, duration of detention, and prison overcrowding due to COVID-19 as grounds for release on personal and surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions regarding tampering and now

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5115 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shravan Kumar Ojha, the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Devendra for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2021, under Sections 386 & 506 IPC, registered at Police Station- Adarsh Mandi, District- Shamli.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 17.1.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Harendra Singh against the applicant before Police Station- Adarsh Mandi, DistrictShamli being FIR no.0217of 2021 on 10.11.2021 at 13:49 hours under Sections 386/506 IPC regarding commission of offence with an allegation that threat was being administered on phone demanding a ransom of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards page 26 of the bail application so as to contend that in the statement of Harendra Singh being complainant, the name of the applicant surfaceed, it has been alleged that the applicant has been harassing and administering the threat.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question he has not committed any crime and he has referred from the page 25 so as to contend that he does not possess any criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 12.11.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has

¶12

opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant, as such he has been proceeded in the case in question and merely because he was not named in the FIR will not be a ground to hold the applicant innocent, but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.11.2021 and applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 12.11.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶14

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Devendra involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Any 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.

¶24

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.2.2022 piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.21 10:19:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Arif Mota Vs State of U.P.

Haridesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Suresh Singh Rana Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Madheshiya Vs State of U.P.

Jumma Vs State of U.P.